CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 111

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method for Drug-Induced Liver Injury: Present and Future

Danan, Gaby, Teschke, Rolf·2019·Frontiers in Pharmacology
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2019.00853PMC PMC6680600
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.3389/fphar.2019.00853

Cites

3 of 3 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Aiso, 2019, Analysis of 307 cases with drug-induced liver injury be tween 2010 and 2018 in Japan, Hepatol. Res., 49, 105, 10.1111/hepr.13288 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Andrade, 2016, Drug-induced liver injury clinical consortia: a global research response for a worldwide health challenge, Expert. Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol., 12, 589, 10.1517/17425255.2016.1141896 · DOI
  3. Baekdal, 2017, Drug-induced liver injury: a cohort study on patients referred to the Danish transplant center over a five year period, Scand. J. Gastroenterol., 52, 450, 10.1080/00365521.2016.1267790 · DOI
  4. Becker, 2019, Liver injury induced by drugs and plants: a critical review of Brazilian cases and proposals for improvement of causality assessment using RUCAM
  5. Bessone, 2019, When the creation of a consortium provides useful answers: experience of The Latin American DILI Network (LATINDILIN), Clin. Liver Dis., 13, 51, 10.1002/cld.778 · DOI
  6. Björnsson, 2014, Epidemiology and risk factors for idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury, Semin. Liver Dis., 34, 115, 10.1055/s-0034-1375953 · DOI
  7. Björnsson, 2016, Hepatotoxicity by drugs: the most common implicated agents, Int. J. Mol. Sci., 17, 224, 10.3390/ijms17020224 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Björnsson, 2016, Categorization of drugs implicated in causing liver injury: critical assessment based on published case reports, Hepatology, 63, 590, 10.1002/hep.28323 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Cheetham, 2014, An automated causality assessment algorithm to detect drug-induced liver injury in electronic medical record data, Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf., 23, 601, 10.1002/pds.3531 · DOI
  10. Danan, 2016, RUCAM in drug and herb induced liver injury: the update, Int. J. Mol. Sci., 17, 10.3390/ijms17010014 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Danan, 2018, Drug-induced liver injury: why is the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) still used 25 years after its launch, Drug Saf., 41, 735, 10.1007/s40264-018-0654-2 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Douros, 2014, Drug-induced liver injury: results from the hospital-based Berlin Case–Control Surveillance Study, Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 79, 988, 10.1111/bcp.12565 · DOI
  13. García-Cortés, 2018, Drug-induced liver injury: a safety review, Expert. Opin. Drug Saf., 17, 795, 10.1080/14740338.2018.1505861 · DOI
  14. Hanatani, 2014, A detection algorithm for drug-induced liver injury in medical information databases using the Japanese diagnostic scale and its comparison with the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences/the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method scale, Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf., 23, 984, 10.1002/pds.3603 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Hassan, 2019, The diagnosis and management of idiopathic drug-induced liver injury, Liver Int., 39, 31, 10.1111/liv.13931 · DOI
  16. Hayashi, 2015, Reliability of causality assessment for drug, herbal and dietary supplement hepatotoxicity in the Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN), Liver Int., 35, 1623, 10.1111/liv.12540 · DOI
  17. Heidemann, 2017, A text searching tool to identify patients with idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury, Dig. Dis. Sci., 62, 615, 10.1007/s10620-015-3970-8 · DOI
  18. Hunt, 2018, Expanding our toolkit to better identify drug-induced liver injury in electronic medical records, Liver Int., 38, 585, 10.1111/liv.13710 · DOI
  19. Kullak-Ublick, 2017, Drug-induced liver injury: recent advances in diagnosis and risk assessment, Gut, 66, 1154, 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-313369 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Licata, 2017, A focus on epidemiology of drug-induced liver injury: analysis of a prospective study, Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci., 21, 112
  21. Liu, 2018, The diagnostic role of miR-122 in drug-induced liver injury. A systematic review and meta-analysis, Medicine, 97, 49, 10.1097/MD.0000000000013478 · DOI
  22. Rathi, 2017, Drug induced liver injury at a tertiary hospital in India: etiology, clinical features and predictors of mortality, Ann. Hepatol., 16, 442, 10.5604/01.3001.0009.8600 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Real, 2019, Drug-induced liver injury: highlights of the recent literature, Drug Saf., 42, 365, 10.1007/s40264-018-0743-2 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Regev, 2014, Causality assessment for suspected DILI during clinical phases of drug development, Drug Saf., 37, S47, 10.1007/s40264-014-0185-4 · DOI
  25. Russmann, 2014, Rivaroxaban postmarketing risk of liver injury, J. Hepatol., 61, 293, 10.1016/j.jhep.2014.03.026 · DOI
  26. Sarges, 2016, Drug-induced liver injury: highlights from a review of the 2015 literature, Drug Saf., 39, 561, 10.1007/s40264-016-0427-8 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Scalfaro, 2017, Preliminary results of a novel algorithmic method aiming to support initial causality assessment of routine pharmacovigilance case reports for medication-induced liver injury: the PV-RUCAM, Drug Saf., 40, 715, 10.1007/s40264-017-0541-2 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Shahbaz, 2018, Highlights of drug- and herb-induced liver injury in the literature from 2016: how best to translate new information into clinical practice, Expert. Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol., 13, 935, 10.1080/17425255.2017.1362391 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Shin, 2013, Characterizing phenotypes and outcomes of drug-associated liver injury using electronic medical record data, Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf., 22, 190, 10.1002/pds.3388 · DOI
  30. Sobhonslidsuk, 2016, The incidence, presentation, outcomes, risk of mortality and economic data of drug-induced liver injury from a national database in Thailand: a population-base study, BMC Gastroenterol., 16, 135, 10.1186/s12876-016-0550-0 · DOI
  31. Tan, 2018, Systematic review and meta-analysis of algorithms used to identify drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in health record databases, Liver Int., 38, 742, 10.1111/liv.13646 · DOI
  32. Tao, 2018, Genetic polymorphisms of UGT 1A1 anRd susceptibility to anti-tuberculosis drug-induced liver: a RUCAM-based case–control study, Int. J. Immunopathol. Pharmacol., 32, 1, 10.1177/2058738418816288 · DOI
  33. Teschke, 2019, Idiosyncratic DILI: overview and analysis of 46,266 cases assessed for causality by RUCAM and published from 2014 to early 2019, Special issue “Clinical drug induced liver injury: current diagnostic and mechanistic challenges, 10, 730, 10.3389/fphar.2019.00730 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Teschke, 2016, Diagnosis and management of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in patients with pre-existing liver disease, Drug Saf., 39, 729, 10.1007/s40264-016-0423-z · DOI
  35. Teschke, 2017, Prospective Indian study of DILI with confirmed causality using the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM): a report of excellence, Ann. Hepatol., 16, 324, 10.5604/16652681.1235471 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Teschke, 2018, Causality assessment methods in drug-induced liver injury, 555, 10.1007/978-1-4939-7677-5_27 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Teschke, 2018, Drug-induced liver injury with analysis of alternative causes as confounding variables, Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 84, 1467, 10.1111/bcp.13593 · DOI
  38. Teschke, 2015, Herbal hepatotoxicity in traditional and modern medicine: actual key issues and new encouraging steps, Front. Pharmacol., 6, 1, 10.3389/fphar.2015.00072 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Teschke, 2016, Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and herbal hepatotoxicity: RUCAM and the role of novel diagnostic biomarkers such as microRNAs, Medicines, 3, 18, 10.3390/medicines3030018 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Teschke, 2017, Drug induced liver injury: can biomarkers assist RUCAM in causality assessment? Special issue: molecular research on drug induced liver injury, Int. J. Mol. Sci., 18, 803, 10.3390/ijms18040803 · DOI
  41. Tillmann, 2018, Novel approaches to causality adjudication in drug-induced liver disease, Curr. Hepatol. Rep., 17, 276, 10.1007/s11901-018-0416-8 · DOI
  42. Vine, 2015, Hepatitis E, A and other hepatotropic viruses, Medicine, 43, 594, 10.1016/j.mpmed.2015.07.006 · DOI
  43. Watkins, 2015, How to diagnose and exclude drug-induced liver injury, Dig. Dis., 33, 472, 10.1159/000374091 · DOI
  44. Yu, 2017, CSH guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of drug-induced liver injury, Hepatol. Int., 11, 221, 10.1007/s12072-017-9793-2 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Zhu, 2016, Comparison between Chinese herbal medicine and Western medicine-induced liver injury of 1985 patients, J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol., 31, 1476, 10.1111/jgh.13323 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Danan, G., & Teschke, R.
Venue
Frontiers in Pharmacology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2019-07-29
Volume
10
ISSN
1663-9812
DOI
10.3389/fphar.2019.00853
PMC
PMC6680600
Cited by
111
References
3
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

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