Correction to: VigiGrade: A Tool to Identify Well-Documented Individual Case Reports and Highlight Systematic Data Quality Issues (Drug Safety 2014, 37, 65–77, 10.1007/s40264-013-0131-x);VigiGrade: A tool to identify well-documented individual case reports and highlight systematic data quality issues

Drug Safety

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 65-77

  Bergvall, Tomas ^a   Niklas Noren G ^a,b   Lindquist, Marie ^a  

^a UPPSALA MONITORING CENTRE   (Sweden)

^b STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CLINICAL STUDY; CONSUMER; CROATIA; DATA BASE; DENMARK; DRUG INFORMATION; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EUROPE; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; HUMAN; INCIDENT REPORT; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; ITALY; NORWAY; ONSET AGE; PHYSICIAN; PORTUGAL; POSTMARKETING SURVEILLANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUNISHMENT; SAFETY; SAFETY NET HOSPITAL; SCORING SYSTEM; SEX; SPAIN; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; TUNISIA; UNITED STATES; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

ADVERSE DRUG REACTION REPORTING SYSTEMS; COMMUNICATION; DATABASES, FACTUAL; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; PHARMACOVIGILANCE; PRODUCT SURVEILLANCE, POSTMARKETING; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; RESEARCH DESIGN; SWEDEN; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

EID: 84896847105     PISSN: 01145916     EISSN: 11791942     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40264-019-00803-8     Document Type: Erratum

References (18)

1. Edwards IR, Aronson JK. Adverse drug reactions: definitions, diagnosis, and management. Lancet. 2000;356(9237):1255-9.
2. van Puijenbroek EP. Case reports and drug safety. Drug Saf. 2006;29(8):643-5. doi:10.2165/00002018-200629080-00001. (Pubitemid 44175035)
3. Clarke A, Deeks J, Shakir SW. An assessment of the publicly disseminated evidence of safety used in decisions to withdraw medicinal products from the UK and US markets. Drug Saf. 2006;29(2):175-81. doi:10.2165/00002018-200629020- 00008. (Pubitemid 43213891)
4. Edwards IR, Lindquist M, Wiholm BE, Napke E. Quality criteria for early signals of possible adverse drug reactions. Lancet. 1990;336(8708):156-8. (Pubitemid 20224982)
5. Vandenbroucke JP. In defense of case reports and case series. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134(4):330-4. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-134-4-200102200-00017. (Pubitemid 32163956)
6. Star K, Bate A, Meyboom RH, Edwards IR. Pneumonia following antipsychotic prescriptions in electronic health records: a patient safety concern? Br J Gen Pract. 2010;60(579):385-94.
7. ICH guideline E2B (R2). Electronic transmission of individual case safety reports message specification (ICH ICSR DTD Version 2.1), Final Version 2.3, Document Revision Feb. 1, 2001. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ DevelopmentApprovalPro cess/FormsSubmissionRequirements/ElectronicSubmissions/UC M149932.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec. 2013.
8. Guidance for industry: good pharmacovigilance practices and pharmacoepidemiologic assessment [Internet document]. http://www.fda.gov/ downloads/regulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm1 26834.pdf. Accessed Jun. 2013.
9. Good Pharmacovigilance Practices, Module I-Pharmacovigilance systems and their quality systems [Internet document]. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en-GB/ document-library/Scienti fic-guideline/2012/06/WC500129132.pdf. Accessed Jun. 2013.
10. Lindquist M. Data quality management in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf. 2004;27(12):857-70. (Pubitemid 39331684)
11. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Best practice in reporting of individual case safety reports (ICSRs). Internet Document: [55 pages]. Available from: http://www.mhra.gov. uk/home/groups/comms-ic/documents/ publication/con 108808.pdf. Accessed Jun. 2013
12. Lindquist M. Seeing and observing in international pharmacovigilance- achievements and prospects in worldwide drug safety. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen; 2003.
13. Agbabiaka TB, Savović J, Harris R, Ernst E. The development of a tool to assess the quality of case reports of adverse events. Int J Risk Saf Med. 2008;20(3):123-33.
14. Norén GN, Hopstadius J, Bate A. Shrinkage observed-to-expected ratios for robust and transparent large-scale pattern discovery. Stat Methods Med Res. 2011;. doi:10.1177/0962280211403604.
15. Blenkinsopp A, Wilkie P, Wang M, Routledge PA. Patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a review of published literature and international experience. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;63(2):148-56. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02746.x. (Pubitemid 46072099)
16. de Langen J, van Hunsel F, Passier A, de Jong-van den Berg L, van Grootheest K. Adverse drug reaction reporting by patients in the Netherlands: three years of experience. Drug Saf. 2008;31(6):515-24. (Pubitemid 351693684)
17. Harmark L, Lie-Kwie M, Berm L, de Gier H, van Grootheest K. Patients' motives for participating in active post-marketing surveillance. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22(1):70-6. doi:10.1002/pds.3327.
18. Norén GN, Edwards R. Opportunities and challenges of adverse drug reaction surveillance in electronic patient records. Pharmacovigil Rev. 2010;4(1):17-20.