Completeness of published case reports on suspected adverse drug reactions: Evaluation of 100 reports from a company safety database

Drug Safety

Volumn 33, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 765-773

  Impicciatore, Piero ^a   Mucci, Massimiliano ^a  

^a PFIZER INC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GENERIC DRUG;

ANAMNESIS; ARTICLE; CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION; DATA BASE; DRUG INFORMATION; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; RELIABILITY; STANDARDIZATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT DURATION; UNSPECIFIED SIDE EFFECT;

ADVERSE DRUG REACTION REPORTING SYSTEMS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG INDUSTRY; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PUBLISHING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 77955586347     PISSN: 01145916     EISSN: 11791942     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11537500-000000000-00000     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Van Puijenbroek EP. Case reports and drug safety. Drug Saf2006; 29 (8): 643-645
2. Haramburu E, Begaud B, Pere JC. Comparison of 500spontaneous and 500 published reports of adverse drug reactions. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1990; 3: 287-288
3. Aronson JK, Derry S, Loke YK. Adverse drug reactions: keep-ing up to date. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2002; 16 (1): 49-56
4. Vandenbroucke JP. In defence of case reports and caseseries. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134 (4): 330-334
5. Russmann S. Case reports of suspected adverse drug reac-tions: case reports generate signals efficiently [letter]. BMJ 2006; 332 (7539): 488
6. Berneker GC, Ciucci AG, Joyce J. Standards for reportingadverse drug reactions [letter]. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1983; 287 (6406): 1720
7. Venulet J. Informativity of adverse reactions data in medicalpublications. Drug Inf J 1985; 19 (2): 357-365
8. Venulet J. Improving reports on adverse drug reactions[letter]. BMJ 1984; 289 (6449): 898
9. Aronson JK. Anecdotes as evidence: we need guidelines forreporting anecdotes of suspected adverse drug reactions. BMJ 2003; 326 (7403): 1346
10. Kelly WN, Arellano FM, Barnes J, et al. Guidelines forsubmitting adverse event reports for publication. Drug Saf 2007; 30 (5): 367-373 (Pubitemid 46740334)
11. Aronson JK. Publishing histories of adverse reactions tomedicaments anecdotally: the PHARMA guidelines for reporting suspected adverse drug reactions. Drug Saf 2008; 31 (4): 355-356
12. Hauben M, Aronson JK. Gold standard in pharmaco-vigilance: the use of definitive anecdotal reports of adverse drug reactions as pure gold and high-grade ore. Drug Saf 2007; 30 (8): 645-655
13. Ferguson J, Mockbee C, Erbele S, et al. Evaluation of pub-lished case reports: standards and recognition. Drug Inf J 2002; 36 (2): 303-307
14. Kelly WN. The quality of published adverse drug eventreports. Ann Pharmacother 2003; 37 (12): 1774-1778
15. Karch SB. Peer review and the process of publishing of adversedrug event reports'. J Forensic Leg Med 2007; 14 (2): 79-84
16. Haramburu F, Miremont G, Chaslerie A, et al. Efficiency ofmedical journals for pharmacovigilance. Lancet 1993; 341: 1030-1031
17. Golder S, Loke Y. Search strategies to identify informationon adverse effects: a systematic review. J Med Libr Assoc 2009; 97 (2): 84-92
18. Harmark L, van Grootheest AC. Pharmacovigilance:methods, recent developments and future perspectives. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2008; 64 (8): 743-752
19. Fontaine AL. Current requirements and emerging trends forlabelling as a tool for communicating pharmacovigilance findings. Drug Saf 2004; 27 (8): 579-589
20. Loke YK, Price D, Derry S, et al. Case reports of sus-pected adverse drug reactions: systematic literature survey of follow-up. BMJ 2006; 332 (7537): 335-339
21. Edwards RI. The future of pharmacovigilance: a personalview. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2008; 64 (2): 173-181
22. Hirst C, Cook S, Dai W, et al. A call for international har-monization in therapeutic risk management. Pharmaco-epidemiol Drug Saf 2006; 15 (12): 539-549