Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 639

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Computerized Surveillance of Adverse Drug Events in Hospital Patients

Open access
Classen, David C.·1991·JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association

Abstract

Objective. —To develop a new method to improve the detection and characterization of adverse drug events (ADEs) in hospital patients. Design. —Prospective study of all patients admitted to our hospital over an 18-month period. Setting. —LDS Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah, a 520-bed tertiary care center affiliated with the University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City. Patients. —We developed a computerized ADE monitor, and computer programs were written using an integrated hospital information system to allow for multiple source detection of potential ADEs occurring in hospital patients. Signals of potential ADEs, both voluntary and automated, included sudden medication stop orders, antidote ordering, and certain abnormal laboratory values. Each day, a list of all potential ADEs from these sources was generated, and a pharmacist reviewed the medical records of all patients with possible ADEs for accuracy and causality. Verified ADEs were characterized as mild, moderate, or severe and as type A (dose-dependent or predictable) or type B (idiosyncratic or allergic) reactions, and causality was further measured using a standardized scoring method. Outcome Measure. —The number and characterization of ADEs detected. Results. —Over 18 months, we monitored 36 653 hospitalized patients. There were 731 verified ADEs identified in 648 patients, 701 ADEs were characterized as moderate or severe, and 664 were classified as type A reactions. During this same period, only nine ADEs were identified using traditional detection methods. Physicians, pharmacists, and nurses voluntarily reported 92 of the 731 ADEs detected using this automated system. The other 631 ADEs were detected from automated signals, the most common of which were diphenhydramine hydrochloride and naloxone hydrochloride use, high serum drug levels, leukopenia, and the use of phytonadione and antidiarrheals. The most common symptoms and signs were pruritus, nausea and/or vomiting, rash, and confusion-lethargy. The most common drug classes involved were analgesics, anti-infectives, and cardiovascular agents. Conclusion. —We believe that screening for ADEs with a computerized hospital information system offers a potential method for improving the detection and characterization of these events in hospital patients. (JAMA. 1991;266:2847-2851)

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/jama.1991.03470200059035

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 639

Metadata

Authors
Classen, D. C.
Venue
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Published
1991-11-27
Volume
266
Issue
20
Pages
2847
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W4297918346
Cited by
639
References
0
FWCI
24.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Computerized Surveillance of Adverse Drug Events in Hospital Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.1991.03470200059035
The paper
Classen, D. C. (1991). Computerized Surveillance of Adverse Drug Events in Hospital Patients. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1991.03470200059035

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.