Reporting of fatal adverse drug reactions.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: To review the reports of fatal adverse drug reactions (ADRs) submitted to the Ontario Medical Association Adverse Drug Reactions Monitoring Program between 1990 and 1994; to identify drugs associated with fatal outcomes; and to assess the causative role of the drug in these events and the completeness of the data in these reports. METHODS: Drug(s) identified on each ADR report as being responsible for the reaction were considered. Agents were classified by the Anatomical Therapeutic and Chemical classification system. The causality of each ADR report was evaluated by using an algorithmic rating scale. RESULTS: From the Ontario Medical Association database, 97 cases of ADRs that resulted in death were reviewed. One hundred fourteen medications were implicated as "suspect" drugs in the 97 deaths. The most commonly implicated drug classes were musculoskeletal agents, blood and blood-forming organ agents, and nervous system agents. Patients over 65 years of age comprised 60% of this series. After independent assessment as to causality, 13% of the cases were rated as probable, 86% were rated as possible and 1% were rated as doubtful. Seventy per cent of reports did not include information regarding medical history. Forty-two per cent of cases failed to provide adequate information to evaluate the feasibility of the time to onset of the ADR. The use of concomitant drugs was not reported in 12% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The drugs most frequently implicated in fatal ADRs were consistent with those reported in other studies. Algorithmic causality assessments were of limited value in these reports. The completeness of the reports and adequacy of the information were poor. The type of reporting forms and information provided were not homogenous. There is a need to improve quality of reporting and harmonize reporting forms between monitoring bodies. The feasibility of unique data collection forms and obligatory reporting for fatal ADRs should be considered.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».