2003
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2710.2003.00475.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Causality assessment of adverse drug reactions: comparison of the results obtained from published decisional algorithms and from the evaluations of an expert panel, according to different levels of imputability

Abstract: Full agreement with global introspection was not found for any level of causality assessment. Confounding variables were found to be associated with low levels of agreement between decision algorithms and the GI method compromising the algorithms' sensitivity and specificity.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
44
0
2

Year Published

2006
2006
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 77 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
1
44
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…102 Most emphasis, however, has been placed on adjudication by an expert panel. 103 Because there is no consensus on the preferred diagnostic approach, the DILIN investigators are presently working to develop an improved approach to causality assessment. A complex computerbased process is utilized in gathering and distributing relevant information.…”
Section: Leonard B Seeff: Improving Causality Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…102 Most emphasis, however, has been placed on adjudication by an expert panel. 103 Because there is no consensus on the preferred diagnostic approach, the DILIN investigators are presently working to develop an improved approach to causality assessment. A complex computerbased process is utilized in gathering and distributing relevant information.…”
Section: Leonard B Seeff: Improving Causality Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast to the liver specific core elements of the original and updated CIOMS scale (Tables 1 and 2) [4, [21][22][23][24] , numerous causality algorithms are liver unspecific [4,24,76,79,80] , including the Naranjo scale [81] , the World Health Organization (WHO) global introspection method as the WHO method in short [82] , and the KL method of Karg and Lasagna [83] . Particularly intensive discussions focused on the Naranjo scale [4,24,25,[84][85][86][87] , the WHO method [4,24,84,87] , and the KL method [24,25] .…”
Section: Liver Unspecific Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite the associations between orlistat and AKI, establishing causality between drug exposure and adverse outcome is challenging [Macedo et al 2003;Meyboom, 1998;Karch et al 1976]. Although innumerable algorithms and probabilistic models have been developed to improve upon the common practice of assigning causality based on expert opinion, no gold standard exists [Agbabiaka et al 2008].…”
Section: Causalitymentioning
confidence: 99%