Dataset Information

Development and inter-rater reliability of the Liverpool adverse drug reaction causality assessment tool.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

To develop and test a new adverse drug reaction (ADR) causality assessment tool (CAT).

Methods

A comparison between seven assessors of a new CAT, formulated by an expert focus group, compared with the Naranjo CAT in 80 cases from a prospective observational study and 37 published ADR case reports (819 causality assessments in total).

Main outcome measures

Utilisation of causality categories, measure of disagreements, inter-rater reliability (IRR).

Results

The Liverpool ADR CAT, using 40 cases from an observational study, showed causality categories of 1 unlikely, 62 possible, 92 probable and 125 definite (1, 62, 92, 125) and 'moderate' IRR (kappa 0.48), compared to Naranjo (0, 100, 172, 8) with 'moderate' IRR (kappa 0.45). In a further 40 cases, the Liverpool tool (0, 66, 81, 133) showed 'good' IRR (kappa 0.6) while Naranjo (1, 90, 185, 4) remained 'moderate'.

Conclusion

The Liverpool tool assigns the full range of causality categories and shows good IRR. Further assessment by different investigators in different settings is needed to fully assess the utility of this tool.

SUBMITTER: Gallagher RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3237416 | biostudies-literature | 2011

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development and inter-rater reliability of the Liverpool adverse drug reaction causality assessment tool.

Gallagher Ruairi M RM Kirkham Jamie J JJ Mason Jennifer R JR Bird Kim A KA Williamson Paula R PR Nunn Anthony J AJ Turner Mark A MA Smyth Rosalind L RL Pirmohamed Munir M

PloS one 20111214 12

<h4>Aim</h4>To develop and test a new adverse drug reaction (ADR) causality assessment tool (CAT).<h4>Methods</h4>A comparison between seven assessors of a new CAT, formulated by an expert focus group, compared with the Naranjo CAT in 80 cases from a prospective observational study and 37 published ADR case reports (819 causality assessments in total).<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>Utilisation of causality categories, measure of disagreements, inter-rater reliability (IRR).<h4>Results</h4>The Liv ...[more]

PMID: 22194808

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimTo 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.MethodsThe 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).Main outcome measuresInter-rater reliability (IRR), measure of disagreement and utilization of avoidability categories.ResultsPreliminary 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'.ConclusionAvoidability 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.

Project description:BackgroundStudies published in general and specialty medical journals have the potential to improve emergency medicine (EM) practice, but there can be delayed awareness of this evidence because emergency physicians (EPs) are unlikely to read most of these journals. Also, not all published studies are intended for or ready for clinical practice application. The authors developed "Best Evidence in Emergency Medicine" (BEEM) to ameliorate these problems by searching for, identifying, appraising, and translating potentially practice-changing studies for EPs. An initial step in the BEEM process is the BEEM rater scale, a novel tool for EPs to collectively evaluate the relative clinical relevance of EM-related studies found in more than 120 journals. The BEEM rater process was designed to serve as a clinical relevance filter to identify those studies with the greatest potential to affect EM practice. Therefore, only those studies identified by BEEM raters as having the highest clinical relevance are selected for the subsequent critical appraisal process and, if found methodologically sound, are promoted as the best evidence in EM.ObjectivesThe primary objective was to measure inter-rater reliability (IRR) of the BEEM rater scale. Secondary objectives were to determine the minimum number of EP raters needed for the BEEM rater scale to achieve acceptable reliability and to compare performance of the scale against a previously published evidence rating system, the McMaster Online Rating of Evidence (MORE), in an EP population.MethodsThe authors electronically distributed the title, conclusion, and a PubMed link for 23 recently published studies related to EM to a volunteer group of 134 EPs. The volunteers answered two demographic questions and rated the articles using one of two randomly assigned seven-point Likert scales, the BEEM rater scale (n = 68) or the MORE scale (n = 66), over two separate administrations. The IRR of each scale was measured using generalizability theory.ResultsThe IRR of the BEEM rater scale ranged between 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.86 to 0.93) to 0.92 (95% CI = 0.89 to 0.94) across administrations. Decision studies showed a minimum of 12 raters is required for acceptable reliability of the BEEM rater scale. The IRR of the MORE scale was 0.82 to 0.84.ConclusionsThe BEEM rater scale is a highly reliable, single-question tool for a small number of EPs to collectively rate the relative clinical relevance within the specialty of EM of recently published studies from a variety of medical journals. It compares favorably with the MORE system because it achieves a high IRR despite simply requiring raters to read each article's title and conclusion.

Dataset Information

Development and inter-rater reliability of the Liverpool adverse drug reaction causality assessment tool.

Aim

Methods

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Development and inter-rater reliability of the Liverpool adverse drug reaction causality assessment tool.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets