Prevalence of adverse drug reactions with commonly prescribed drugs in different hospitals of Kathmandu valley.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: To study the prevalence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in five different hospitals of Kathmandu Valley. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An analytical cross sectional study was designed from May 2007 to September 2007 in which prevalence of ADR was calculated. A total of 37 cases of ADRs were taken from 4287 patients and 10% of the remaining population without ADRs i.e. 425 out of 4250 patients was selected randomly. ADRs were analyzed as per the structured questionnaires designed by Canadian adverse drug reaction monitoring program. Data thus obtained were analyzed by using SPSS and Excel 2003 software and relevant statistical tools were applied. RESULTS: Prevalence of ADR in this study was 0.86% and male to female ratio was 0.85. 54.1% were female and 45.9% were male (P = 0.65). The highest percentage of ADRs were seen in adult patients, however the difference was statistically not significant. Maximum numbers of ADRs were reported from skin, 35.13% followed by GIT, 29.72% and then from CNS, 18.91%. Anti-infectives were associated with maximum number of ADRs followed by IV urograffin. Rashes, 35.13% were the most common type of ADRs reported followed by vomiting, 13.51% and then dizziness which was 10.81%. Regarding the outcomes attributed to ADRs, one patient died due to ADR caused by dapsone and 15 cases got hospitalized due to ADRs. The incidence of ADRs in different age groups was not significant. Similarly, there was no significant association between ADRs and sex. No significant difference was seen in case of age group less than one year as compared to two or more years of age (P = 0.78). For causality of ADRs, according to Naranjo algorhythm scale, 35% of reactions were assessed to be probable, 32% as possible and 19% were definite. Similarly, for severity assessment, 54% reports were mild, 35% were moderate and 10.81% were severe. CONCLUSION: Prevalence of ADR in this study was 0.8% which is similar to other studies in other countries. All the ADRs were not toxic reactions and they were unpredictable.
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 | 0,000 | 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) | 0,000 | 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 ».