IPSIndian Journal of Pharmacology
Home  IPS  Feedback Subscribe Top cited articles Login 
Users Online : 237 
Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Navigate Here
 »   Next article
 »   Previous article
 »   Table of Contents

Resource Links
 »   Similar in PUBMED
 »Related articles
 »   Citation Manager
 »   Access Statistics
 »   Reader Comments
 »   Email Alert *
 »   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed7055    
    Printed115    
    Emailed2    
    PDF Downloaded402    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal

 

 SHORT COMMUNICATION
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 46  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 117-120

A study of agreement between the Naranjo algorithm and WHO-UMC criteria for causality assessment of adverse drug reactions


Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Topiwala National Medical College and Bai Yamunabai Laxmanrao Nair Charitable Hospital, Mumbai Central, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Renuka P Munshi
Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Topiwala National Medical College and Bai Yamunabai Laxmanrao Nair Charitable Hospital, Mumbai Central, Mumbai, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0253-7613.125192

Rights and Permissions

Objectives: Reliability and usefulness of various adverse drug reaction (ADR) causality assessment scales have not been fully explored. There is no universally accepted method for causality grading of ADRs. In the present study we assessed agreement between the two widely used causality assessment scales, that is, the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Center (WHO-UMC) criteria and the Naranjo algorithm. Materials and Methods: The same observer assessed all ADRs (n = 913) collected between January 2010 and December 2012 using the WHO-UMC criteria and Naranjo algorithm at a tertiary care hospital in India. We found that the most frequently assigned causality category was "possible" with both the scales. Results: A disagreement in the causality assessment was found in 45 (4.9%) cases reflecting ''poor'' agreement between the two scales (Kappa statistic with 95% confidence interval = 0.143 [0.018, 0.268]). The mean time taken to assess causality of the ADR using the WHO-UMC criteria was shorter than that by the Naranjo algorithm. Conclusion: This study showed that there is a poor agreement between the WHO-UMC criteria and Naranjo algorithm with the former being less time-consuming.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article

Site Map | Home | Contact Us | Feedback | Copyright and Disclaimer
Online since 20th July '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow