Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1111/bcp.12944 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1111/bcp.12944 C4917803!4917803!27016266     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Br+J+Clin+Pharmacol 2016 ; 82 (1): 17-29 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=27016266|t=2016. Adverse drug event reporting systems: a systematic review |pdf=|usr=}}{{27016266}} gab.com Text Adverse drug event reporting systems: a systematic review JO: Br J Clin Pharmacol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27016266 #FOAvip Aim: Adverse drug events (ADEs) are harmful and unintended consequences of medications. Their reporting is essential for drug safety monitoring and research, but it has not been standardized internationally. Our aim was to synthesize information about the type and variety of data collected within ADE reporting systems. Methods: We developed a systematic search strategy, applied it to four electronic databases, and completed an electronic grey literature search. Two authors reviewed titles and abstracts, and all eligible full?texts. We extracted data using a standardized form, and discussed disagreements until reaching consensus. We synthesized data by collapsing data elements, eliminating duplicate fields and identifying relationships between reporting concepts and data fields using visual analysis software. Results: We identified 108 ADE reporting systems containing 1782 unique data fields. We mapped them to 33 reporting concepts describing patient information, the ADE, concomitant and suspect drugs, and the reporter. While reporting concepts were fairly consistent, we found variability in data fields and corresponding response options. Few systems clarified the terminology used, and many used multiple drug and disease dictionaries such as the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA). Conclusion: We found substantial variability in the data fields used to report ADEs, limiting the comparability of ADE data collected using different reporting systems, and undermining efforts to aggregate data across cohorts. The development of a common standardized data set that can be evaluated with regard to data quality, comparability and reporting rates is likely to optimize ADE data and drug safety surveillance. Twit Text FOAVip Adverse drug event reporting systems: a systematic review ????Br J Clin Pharmacol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27016266 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27016266 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|27016266}}</ref> Adverse drug event reporting systems: a systematic review #MMPMID27016266 Bailey C; Peddie D; Wickham ME; Badke K; Small SS; Doyle?Waters MM; Balka E; Hohl CM Br J Clin Pharmacol 2016[Jul]; 82 (1): 17-29 PMID27016266show ga Aim: Adverse drug events (ADEs) are harmful and unintended consequences of medications. Their reporting is essential for drug safety monitoring and research, but it has not been standardized internationally. Our aim was to synthesize information about the type and variety of data collected within ADE reporting systems. Methods: We developed a systematic search strategy, applied it to four electronic databases, and completed an electronic grey literature search. Two authors reviewed titles and abstracts, and all eligible full?texts. We extracted data using a standardized form, and discussed disagreements until reaching consensus. We synthesized data by collapsing data elements, eliminating duplicate fields and identifying relationships between reporting concepts and data fields using visual analysis software. Results: We identified 108 ADE reporting systems containing 1782 unique data fields. We mapped them to 33 reporting concepts describing patient information, the ADE, concomitant and suspect drugs, and the reporter. While reporting concepts were fairly consistent, we found variability in data fields and corresponding response options. Few systems clarified the terminology used, and many used multiple drug and disease dictionaries such as the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA). Conclusion: We found substantial variability in the data fields used to report ADEs, limiting the comparability of ADE data collected using different reporting systems, and undermining efforts to aggregate data across cohorts. The development of a common standardized data set that can be evaluated with regard to data quality, comparability and reporting rates is likely to optimize ADE data and drug safety surveillance. äAdverse drug event reporting systems: a systematic review (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing