↓ Skip to main content

Adverse Drug Event Causality Analysis (ADECA): A Process for Evaluating Evidence and Assigning Drugs to Risk Categories for Sudden Death

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Safety, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Adverse Drug Event Causality Analysis (ADECA): A Process for Evaluating Evidence and Assigning Drugs to Risk Categories for Sudden Death
Published in
Drug Safety, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40264-017-0519-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raymond L. Woosley, Klaus Romero, Craig W. Heise, Tyler Gallo, Jared Tate, Raymond David Woosley, Sophie Ward

Abstract

Growing evidence indicates that many drugs have the ability to cause a potentially lethal cardiac arrhythmia, torsades de pointes (TdP). This necessitates the development of a compilation of drugs that have this potential toxicity. Such a list is helpful in identifying the etiology of TdP in patients taking multiple drugs and assists decision making by those caring for patients at high risk of TdP. The Arizona Center for Education and Research on Therapeutics (AZCERT) has developed a process to standardize the identification of drugs and place them in risk categories for their clinical ability to cause TdP and QT prolongation. AZCERT's Adverse Drug Event Causality Analysis (ADECA) utilizes 16 types of data drawn from four sources to compile an open-source knowledge base, QTdrugs, which is maintained on the CredibleMeds.org website. Because the evidence for most drugs is incomplete, the ADECA process is used to place drugs into one of three categories that represent different levels of certainty: known TdP risk, possible TdP risk, and conditional TdP risk. Each category has strict evidentiary requirements for clinical evidence of TdP and/or QT prolongation. These are described in this paper. Because evidence can evolve over time, the ADECA process includes the continuous gathering and analysis of newly emerging evidence to revise the lists. The QTdrugs lists have proven to be a valued, readily available, commercial influence-free resource for healthcare providers, patients, researchers, and authors of consensus guidelines for the safe use of medicines.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 15%
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Professor 3 9%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 32%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 6 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 October 2022.
All research outputs
#1,690,237
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from Drug Safety
#159
of 1,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,639
of 309,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Safety
#5
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,707 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,224 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.