Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 309

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development and Validation of a Score to Assess Risk of Adverse Drug Reactions Among In-Hospital Patients 65 Years or Older: The GerontoNet ADR Risk Score

Onder, Graziano, Petrovic, Mirko, Tangiisuran, Balamurugan, Meinardi, Marieke C., Markito-Notenboom, Winih P., Somers, Annemie, Rajkumar, Chakravarthi, Bernabei, Roberto, van der Cammen, Tischa J. M.·2010·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to develop and validate a method of identifying elderly patients who are at increased risk for an adverse drug reaction (ADR). METHODS: Data from the Gruppo Italiano di Farmacoepidemiologia nell'Anziano (Italian Group of Pharmacoepidemiology in the Elderly) were used to develop an ADR risk score. Variables associated with ADRs were identified by a stepwise logistic regression analysis and used to compute the ADR risk score. The ADR risk score was then validated in a sample of older adults who were admitted to 4 university hospitals in Europe (validation study). RESULTS: Of 5936 patients (mean [SD] age, 78.0 [7.2] years) in the Gruppo Italiano di Farmacoepidemiologia nell'Anziano sample, 383 (6.5%) experienced an ADR. The number of drugs and a history of an ADR were the strongest predictors of ADRs, followed by heart failure, liver disease, presence of 4 or more conditions, and renal failure. These variables were used to compute the ADR risk score. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve, which assesses the ability of the risk score to predict ADRs, was 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.73). Overall, 483 patients entered the validation study (mean [SD] age, 80.3 [7.6] years), and 56 (11.6%) experienced an ADR. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve in this sample was 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.78). CONCLUSIONS: This study proposes a practical and simple method of identifying patients who are at an increased risk of an ADR. This approach may be useful in clinical practice as a tool to identify patients at risk and in research to target a population that can benefit from interventions aimed to reduce drug-related illness.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.153

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 36 references

Cited by

See all 309

Metadata

Authors
Onder, G., Petrovic, M., Tangiisuran, B., Meinardi, M. C., Markito-Notenboom, W. P., Somers, A., Rajkumar, C., Bernabei, R., & van der Cammen, T. J. M.
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2010-07-12
Volume
170
Issue
13
Pages
1142-8
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2171632408
Cited by
309
References
36
FWCI
6.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Development and Validation of a Score to Assess Risk of Adverse Drug Reactions Among In-Hospital Patients 65 Years or Older: The GerontoNet ADR Risk Score. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinternmed.2010.153
The paper
Onder, G., Petrovic, M., Tangiisuran, B., Meinardi, M. C., Markito-Notenboom, W. P., Somers, A., Rajkumar, C., Bernabei, R., & van der Cammen, T. J. M. (2010). Development and Validation of a Score to Assess Risk of Adverse Drug Reactions Among In-Hospital Patients 65 Years or Older: The GerontoNet ADR Risk Score. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2010.153

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.