↓ Skip to main content

Quality of the record of drug-related problems in a database for voluntary adverse event reporting

Overview of attention for article published in Farmacia Hospitalaria, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Quality of the record of drug-related problems in a database for voluntary adverse event reporting
Published in
Farmacia Hospitalaria, July 2017
DOI 10.7399/fh.2017.41.4.10747
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Teresa Aznar-Saliente, Laura Roca-Aznar, Amparo Talens-Bolós, Paola Herraiz-Robles, Manuel Bonete-Sánchez, Laia Pons-Martínez, Borja Marcos-Ribes

Abstract

To determine the number and type of errors found in the record of drug-related problems in the SINEA database, an electronic system for voluntary reporting of adverse events in healthcare, in order to quantify the differences between the raw and refined databases, suggest improvements, and determine the need for refining said databases. A Pharmacist reviewed the database and refined the adverse events reported from January to August, 2014, considering the "describe_what_happened" field as the gold standard. There was a comparison of the rates of medication errors, both potential and real, adverse reactions, impact on the patient, impact on healthcare, and medications more frequently involved in the raw and refined databases. Agreement was calculated through Cohen's Kappa Coefficient. 364 adverse events were reported: 66.7% were medication errors, 2.7% adverse reactions to the medication (2 were wrongly classified as both, showing a total percentage >100%) and 31% were other events. After refinement, the percentages were 69.5%, 5.8% and 24.7%, respectively (κ=0.85; CI95% [0.80-0.90]). Before refinement, 73.6% of medication errors were considered potential vs. 82.3% after refinement (κ=0.65; CI95% [0.54- 0.76]). The medication most frequently involved was trastuzumab (20.9%). The  "molecule" field was blank in 133 entries. A mean of 1.8±1.9 errors per entry were detected. Although agreement is good, the refinement process cannot be avoided, as it provides valuable information to improve pharmacotherapy. Data quality could be improved by reducing the number of type-in text fields, using drop-down lists, and by increasing the training of the reporters.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 28%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 28%
Mathematics 1 6%
Computer Science 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 January 2024.
All research outputs
#22,560,980
of 25,168,110 outputs
Outputs from Farmacia Hospitalaria
#146
of 169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#281,097
of 319,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Farmacia Hospitalaria
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,168,110 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 169 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 319,889 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them