Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 296

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Epidemiology of drug exposure and adverse drug reactions in two Swiss departments of internal medicine

Open access
Fattinger, Karin, Roos, Malgorzata, Vergères, Patrice, Holenstein, Clemens, Kind, Brigitt, Masche, Urspeter, Stocker, David N., Braunschweig, Suzanne, Kullak‐Ublick, Gerd A., Galeazzi, Renato L., Follath, Ferenc, Gasser, Theo, Meier, Peter J.·2000·British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Abstract

Aims To explore drug exposure, frequency of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), types of ADRs, predisposing risk factors and ADR‐related excess hospital stay in medical inpatients. Methods Structured data regarding patient characteristics, ‘events’ (symptoms, laboratory results), diagnoses (ICD10) and drug therapy were collected using a computer‐supported data entry system and an interface for data retrieval from electronic patient records. ADR data were collected by ‘event monitoring’ to minimize possible bias by the drug monitor. The causality of each event was assessed in relation to disease(s) and drug therapy. Results The analysis included 4331 (100%) hospitalizations. The median observation period was 8 days. The median number of different drugs administered per patient and day was 6 and varied between 4 (Q 1 ) and 9 (Q 3 ) different drugs in 50% of all hospital days. In 41% of all hospitalizations at least one disease‐unrelated event could be possibly attributed to drug therapy. Clinically relevant ADRs occurred in 11% of all hospitalizations. In 3.3% of all hospitalizations ADRs were the cause of hospital admission. The incidence of possibly ADR‐related deaths was 1.4. Factors predisposing for clinically relevant ADRs were female gender and polypharmacy. ADR‐related excess hospital stay accounted for 8.6% of hospital days. Conclusions These data demonstrate the feasibility of the developed ‘event monitoring’ system for quantitative analysis of ADRs in medical inpatients. With increasing numbers of recorded patients the pharmacoepidemiological database provides a valuable tool to study specific questions regarding drug efficacy and safety in hospitalized patients.

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 · 10.1046/j.1365-2125.2000.00132.x

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 296

Metadata

Authors
Fattinger, K., Roos, M., Vergères, P., Holenstein, C., Kind, B., Masche, U., Stocker, D. N., Braunschweig, S., Kullak‐Ublick, G. A., Galeazzi, R. L., Follath, F., Gasser, T., & Meier, P. J.
Venue
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-02
Volume
49
Issue
2
Pages
158-167
ISSN
  • 0306-5251 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2125
OpenAlex
W2103559160
Cited by
296
References
0
FWCI
11.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Epidemiology of drug exposure and adverse drug reactions in two Swiss departments of internal medicine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2125.2000.00132.x
The paper
Fattinger, K., Roos, M., Vergères, P., Holenstein, C., Kind, B., Masche, U., Stocker, D. N., Braunschweig, S., Kullak‐Ublick, G. A., Galeazzi, R. L., Follath, F., Gasser, T., & Meier, P. J. (2000). Epidemiology of drug exposure and adverse drug reactions in two Swiss departments of internal medicine. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2125.2000.00132.x

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.