Is reporting rate a good predictor of risks associated with drugs?

British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Volumn 47, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 329-331

  Pierfitte, Corinne ^a   Bégaud, Bernard ^a   Lagnaoui, Rajaa ^a   Moore, Nicholas D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE BORDEAUX   (France)

Author keywords

Decision making; Drugs; Pharmacoepidemiology; Pharmacovigilance; Spontaneous reporting

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DRUG INDUCED DISEASE; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; DRUG USE; HUMAN; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 0033062764     PISSN: 03065251     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2125.1999.00881.x     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. 1 Rawlins MD. Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions. I: the data. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1988; 26: 1-5.
2. 2 Smith CC, Bennet PM, Pearce HM, et al. Adverse drug reactions in a hospital general medical unit meriting notification to the Committee on Safety of Medicines. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1996; 42: 423-429.
3. 3 Praus M, Schindel F, Fescharek R, et al. Alert system for post-marketing surveillance of adverse drug reactions. Stat Med 1993; 12: 2383-2393.
4. 4 Lumley CE, Walker SR, Hall GC, et al. The under-reporting of adverse drug reactions seen in general practice. Pharm Med 1986; 1: 205-212.
5. 5 Bégaud B, Tubert P, Haramburu F, et al. Comparing toxicity of drugs: use and misuse of spontaneous reporting. Post-Marketing Surveillance 1991; 5: 69-76.
6. 6 Tubert-Bitter P, Bégaud B, Moride Y, et al. Comparing the toxicity of two drugs in the framework of spontaneous reporting: a confidence interval approach. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 121-123.