Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: To evaluate a methodology for adverse drug reactions (ADRs) detection through hospital databases.
Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted to identify ADRs using diagnostic codes from databases, later validated by chart review. An independent chart review was performed for comparison, as well as assessment of spontaneous reports.
Results: 325 ADRs were identified (prevalence of 2.41%, positive predictive value of 87.6%). Independent chart review identified 9% of ADRs at a cost of 35 person-hours (versus two person-hours in databases). There were seven spontaneous reports of ADRs.
Conclusions: Although not frequently used, the detection of ADRs through databases is a relatively less expensive, fast and effective methodology that can improve current pharmacovigilance systems.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pds.3348 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!