Healthy Skepticism Library item: 2272

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: Journal Article

Macedo AF, Marques FB, Ribeiro CF, Teixeira F.
Causality assessment of adverse drug reactions: comparison of the results obtained from published decisional algorithms and from the evaluations of an expert panel.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2005 Jul 29;
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/110575357/ABSTRACT

Abstract:

PURPOSE: To compare the results of causality assessments of reported adverse drug reactions (ADR’s) obtained from decisional algorithms with those obtained from an expert panel using the WHO global introspection method (GI) and to further evaluate the influence of confounding variables on algorithms ability in assessing causality.

METHOD: Two hundred sequentially reported ADR’s were included in this study. An independent researcher used algorithms, while an expert panel assessed the same reports using the GI, both aimed at evaluating causality. Reports were divided into three groups according to the presence, absence or lack of information on confounding variables.

RESULTS: For the total sample, observed agreements between decisional algorithms compared with GI varied from 21% to 56%, average of 47%. When confounding variables were taken into account, agreements varied between 41% and 69%, average of 58%; 8% and 65%, average of 46% and 15% and 53%, average of 42% accordingly to the absence, lack of information or presence of confounding variables, respectively. The extend of reproducibility beyond chance was low for the total sample (average Kappa = 0.26) and within the groups considered.

CONCLUSION: The overall observed agreement between algorithm and GI was moderate although poorly different from chance, confounding variables being a shortcoming of algorithms ability in assessing causality. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Notes:

[Epub ahead of print]

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts

If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Announcements

PharmedOut’s annual conference: Missing The Target: When Practitioners Harm More Than Heal

No Free Lunch is merging with Healthy Skepticism

Conference program: Pharma Knows Best? Managing Medical Knowledge

Prescrire’s proposals for France’s national conference on medicines policy

Pharmed Out Conference ‘Pharma Knows Best? Managing Medical Knowledge’

More announcements

What's new on this site

Library Home

Library Search

Far too large a section of the treatment of disease is to-day controlled by the big manufacturing pharmacists, who have enslaved us in a plausible pseudo-science...
The blind faith which some men have in medicines illustrates too often the greatest of all human capacities - the capacity for self deception...
Some one will say, Is this all your science has to tell us? Is this the outcome of decades of good clinical work, of patient study of the disease, of anxious trial in such good faith of so many drugs? Give us back the childlike trust of the fathers in antimony and in the lancet rather than this cold nihilism. Not at all! Let us accept the truth, however unpleasant it may be, and with the death rate staring us in the face, let us not be deceived with vain fancies...
we need a stern, iconoclastic spirit which leads, not to nihilism, but to an active skepticism - not the passive skepticism, born of despair, but the active skepticism born of a knowledge that recognizes its limitations and knows full well that only in this attitude of mind can true progress be made.
- William Osler 1909