Bracken Louise E, Nunn Anthony J, Kirkham Jamie J, Peak Matthew, Arnott Janine, Smyth Rosalind L, Pirmohamed Munir, Turner Mark A
Paediatric Medicines Research Unit, Institute in the Park, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Department of Women's & Children's Health, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 3;12(1):e0169393. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169393. eCollection 2017.
To develop and test a new tool to assess the avoidability of adverse drug reactions that is suitable for use in paediatrics but which is also applicable to a variety of other settings.
The study involved multiple phases. Preliminary work involved using the Hallas scale and a modification of the existing Hallas scale, to assess two different sets of adverse drug reaction (ADR) case reports. Phase 1 defined, modified and refined a new tool using multidisciplinary teams. Phase 2 involved the assessment of 50 ADR case reports from a prospective study of paediatric inpatients by individual assessors. Phase 3 compared assessments with the new tool for individuals and groups in comparison to the 'gold standard' (the avoidability outcome set by a panel of senior investigators: an experienced clinical pharmacologist, paediatrician and pharmacist).
Inter-rater reliability (IRR), measure of disagreement and utilization of avoidability categories.
Preliminary work-Pilot phase: results for the original Hallas cases were fair and pairwise kappa scores ranged from 0.21 to 0.36. Results for the modified Hallas cases were poor, pairwise kappa scores ranged from 0.06 to 0.16. Phase 1: on initial use of the new tool, agreement between the two multidisciplinary groups was found on 13/20 cases with a kappa score of 0.29 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.62). Phase 2: the assessment of 50 ADR case reports by six individual reviewers yielded pairwise kappa scores ranging from poor to good 0.12 to 0.75 and percentage exact agreement (%EA) ranged from 52-90%. Phase 3: Percentage exact agreement ranged from 35-70%. Overall, individuals had better agreement with the 'gold standard'.
Avoidability assessment is feasible but needs careful attention to methods. The Liverpool ADR avoidability assessment tool showed mixed IRR. We have developed and validated a method for assessing the avoidability of ADRs that is transparent, more objective than previous methods and that can be used by individuals or groups.
开发并测试一种新工具,用于评估药物不良反应的可避免性,该工具适用于儿科,但也适用于多种其他环境。
该研究涉及多个阶段。初步工作包括使用哈拉斯量表和对现有哈拉斯量表的修改版本,来评估两组不同的药物不良反应(ADR)病例报告。第1阶段使用多学科团队定义、修改和完善了一种新工具。第2阶段由个体评估者对来自儿科住院患者前瞻性研究的50份ADR病例报告进行评估。第3阶段将个体和小组使用新工具的评估结果与“金标准”(由一组资深研究人员设定的可避免性结果:一位经验丰富的临床药理学家、儿科医生和药剂师)进行比较。
评分者间信度(IRR)、不一致性测量以及可避免性类别的使用情况。
初步工作——试点阶段:原始哈拉斯病例的结果一般,两两kappa评分范围为0.21至0.36。修改后的哈拉斯病例结果较差,两两kappa评分范围为0.06至0.16。第1阶段:在首次使用新工具时,两个多学科小组在20个病例中的13个上达成一致,kappa评分为0.29(95%可信区间-0.04至0.62)。第2阶段:六位个体评审员对50份ADR病例报告的评估产生的两两kappa评分范围从较差到良好,为0.12至0.75,完全一致百分比(%EA)范围为52%-90%。第3阶段:完全一致百分比范围为35%-70%。总体而言,个体与“金标准”的一致性更好。
可避免性评估是可行的,但需要仔细关注方法。利物浦ADR可避免性评估工具显示出混合的IRR。我们已经开发并验证了一种评估ADR可避免性的方法,该方法透明、比以前的方法更客观,并且可供个体或小组使用。