Aspects of standardization as applied to the assessment of drug-event associations.

J Venulet
{"title":"Aspects of standardization as applied to the assessment of drug-event associations.","authors":"J Venulet","doi":"10.1177/009286158401800303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Individual case reports about suspected adverse drug reactions are an important source of drug safety data. Their evaluation involves, among other things, the assessment of causality. Usually it is done by expert medical evaluators according to their knowledge and experience. Subjectivity plays a big role as demonstrated by comparison of assessments of the same cases by several evaluators or by the same evaluator at a later date. In recent years, methods of causality assessment based on algorithms were introduced. In these formal approaches, items of information contribute to the assessment in a predetermined and standardized way with a logic that allows operational application. Results obtained with different methods may differ because items of information considered may not be the same and/or strength of evidence attached to them vary from one method to another. The main advantages of standardized assessment are: clear identification of items of information involved, improved communication, reproducibility of results, and the checklist function. Various implications of standardized assessment are discussed and ways to improve their performance outlined.</p>","PeriodicalId":51023,"journal":{"name":"Drug Information Journal","volume":"18 3-4","pages":"199-210"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1984-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/009286158401800303","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug Information Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/009286158401800303","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

Individual case reports about suspected adverse drug reactions are an important source of drug safety data. Their evaluation involves, among other things, the assessment of causality. Usually it is done by expert medical evaluators according to their knowledge and experience. Subjectivity plays a big role as demonstrated by comparison of assessments of the same cases by several evaluators or by the same evaluator at a later date. In recent years, methods of causality assessment based on algorithms were introduced. In these formal approaches, items of information contribute to the assessment in a predetermined and standardized way with a logic that allows operational application. Results obtained with different methods may differ because items of information considered may not be the same and/or strength of evidence attached to them vary from one method to another. The main advantages of standardized assessment are: clear identification of items of information involved, improved communication, reproducibility of results, and the checklist function. Various implications of standardized assessment are discussed and ways to improve their performance outlined.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
应用于药物事件关联评估的标准化方面。
疑似药物不良反应的个案报告是药物安全数据的重要来源。对它们的评估包括对因果关系的评估。通常由专业的医疗评估人员根据他们的知识和经验来完成。主观性起着很大的作用,这可以从几个评价者或同一评价者在以后对同一案件的评价的比较中得到证明。近年来,引入了基于算法的因果关系评估方法。在这些正式的方法中,信息项以预先确定的和标准化的方式为评估做出贡献,其逻辑允许操作应用程序。不同方法得到的结果可能不同,因为所考虑的信息项目可能不相同和/或所附证据的强度因方法而异。标准化评估的主要优点是:清楚地识别所涉及的信息项目,改进沟通,结果的可重复性以及检查表功能。讨论了标准化评估的各种含义,并概述了改进其绩效的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Drug Information Journal
Drug Information Journal 医学-卫生保健
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Relative Efficiency of Unequal Versus Equal Cluster Sizes for the Nonparametric Weighted Sign Test Estimators in Clustered Binary Data. A Patient Focused Solution for Enrolling Clinical Trials in Rare and Selective Cancer Indications: A Landscape of Haystacks and Needles. Testing in a Prespecified Subgroup and the Intent-to-Treat Population. The Correction of Product Information in Drug References and Medical Textbooks Evaluation of Data Entry Errors and Data Changes to an Electronic Data Capture Clinical Trial Database.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1