The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Epidemiology of drug exposure and adverse drug reactions in two Swiss departments of internal medicine
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
High Rates of Adverse Drug Events in a Highly Computerized Hospital
(2005) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.165.10.1111 · Cited by 363
Marchetti, S., Mazzanti, R., Beijnen, J. H., & Schellens, J. H. M. (2007) · The Oncologist · doi:10.1634/theoncologist.12-8-927 · Cited by 284
Healthcare costs and utilization for Medicare beneficiaries with Alzheimer's
Zhao, Y., Kuo, T.-C., Weir, S., Kramer, M. S., & Ash, A. S. (2008) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-108 · Cited by 196
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.