↓ Skip to main content

Reporting of adverse drug reactions in randomised controlled trials – a systematic survey

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Clinical Pharmacology, September 2001
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs

Citations

dimensions_citation
115 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Reporting of adverse drug reactions in randomised controlled trials – a systematic survey
Published in
BMC Clinical Pharmacology, September 2001
DOI 10.1186/1472-6904-1-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yoon Kong Loke, Sheena Derry

Abstract

Decisions on treatment are guided, not only by the potential for benefit, but also by the nature and severity of adverse drug reactions. However, some researchers have found numerous deficiencies in trial reports of adverse effects. We sought to confirm these findings by evaluating trials of drug therapy published in seven eminent medical journals in 1997. Literature review to determine whether the definition, recording and reporting of adverse drug reactions in clinical trials were in accordance with published recommendations on structured reporting. Of the 185 trials reviewed, 25 (14%) made no mention of adverse drug reactions. Data in a further 60 (32%) could not be fully evaluated, either because numbers were not given for each treatment arm (31 trials), or because a generic statement was made without full details (29 trials). When adverse drug reactions such as clinical events or patient symptoms were mentioned in the reports, details on how they had been recorded were given in only 14/95 (15%) and 18/104 (17%) trials respectively. Of the 86 trials that mentioned severity of adverse drug reactions, only 42 (49%) stated how severity had been defined. The median amount of space used for safety data in the Results and Discussion sections was 5.8%. Trial reports often failed to provide details on how adverse drug reactions were defined or recorded. The absence of such methodological information makes comparative evaluation of adverse reaction rates potentially unreliable. Authors and journals should adopt recommendations on the structured reporting of adverse effects.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 48 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 25%
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 6 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 61%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Philosophy 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 8 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 06 May 2016.
All research outputs
#874,416
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Clinical Pharmacology
#3
of 56 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#543
of 40,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Clinical Pharmacology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 56 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
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 40,411 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
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