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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
How to promote adverse drug reaction reports using information systems – a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12911-016-0265-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Inês Ribeiro-Vaz, Ana-Marta Silva, Cristina Costa Santos, Ricardo Cruz-Correia |
| Abstract |
Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are a well-recognized public health problem and a major cause of death and hospitalization in developed countries. The safety of a new drug cannot be established until it has been on the market for several years. Keeping drug reactions under surveillance through pharmacovigilance systems is indispensable. However, underreporting is a major issue that undermines the effectiveness of spontaneous reports. Our work presents a systematic review on the use of information systems for the promotion of ADR reporting. The aim of this work is to describe the state of the art information systems used to promote adverse drug reaction reporting. A systematic review was performed with quantitative analysis of studies describing or evaluating the use of information systems to promote adverse drug reaction reporting. Studies with data related to the number of ADRs reported before and after each intervention and the follow-up period were included in the quantitative analysis. From a total of 3865 articles, 33 articles were included in the analysis; these articles described 29 different projects. Most of the projects were on a regional scale (62 %) and were performed in a hospital context (52 %). A total of 76 % performed passive promotion of ADR reporting and used web-based software (55 %). A total of 72 % targeted healthcare professionals and 24 % were oriented to patient ADR reporting. We performed a meta-analysis of 7 of the 29 projects to calculate the aggregated measure of the ADR reporting increase, which had an overall measure of 2.1 (indicating that the interventions doubled the number of ADRs reported). We found that most of the projects performed passive promotion of ADR reporting (i.e., facilitating the process). They were developed in hospitals and were tailored to healthcare professionals. These interventions doubled the number of ADR reports. We believe that it would be useful to develop systems to assist healthcare professionals with completing ADR reporting within electronic health records because this approach seems to be an efficient method to increase the ADR reporting rate. When this approach is not possible, it is essential to have a tool that is easily accessible on the web to report ADRs. This tool can be promoted by sending emails or through the inclusion of direct hyperlinks on healthcare professionals' desktops. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 25% |
| France | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 164 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 14% |
| Researcher | 18 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 32 | 19% |
| Unknown | 44 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 39 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 15 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 20 | 12% |
| Unknown | 52 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,037,471
of 24,312,464 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,120
of 2,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,536
of 303,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#20
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,312,464 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,071 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 303,103 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.