↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Profile of rheumatology patients willing to report adverse drug reactions: bias from selective reporting

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Profile of rheumatology patients willing to report adverse drug reactions: bias from selective reporting
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, February 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s96449
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dragana Protić, Nada Vujasinović-Stupar, Zoran Bukumirić, Slavica Pavlov-Dolijanović, Snežana Baltić, Slavica Mutavdžin, Ljiljana Marković-Denić, Marija Zdravković, Zoran Todorović

Abstract

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) have a significant impact on human health and health care costs. The aims of our study were to determine the profile of rheumatology patients willing to report ADRs and to identify bias in such a reporting system. Semi-intensive ADRs reporting system was used in our study. Patients willing to participate (N=261) completed the questionnaire designed for the purpose of the study at the hospital admission. They were subsequently classified into two groups according to their ability to identify whether they had experienced ADRs during the previous month. Group 1 included 214 out of 261 patients who were able to identify ADRs, and group 2 consisted of 43 out of 261 patients who were not able to identify ADRs in their recent medical history. Group 1 patients were more significantly aware of their diagnosis than the patients from group 2. Marginal significance was found between rheumatology patients with and without neurological comorbidities regarding their awareness of ADRs. The majority of patients reported ADRs of cytotoxic drugs. The most reported ADRs were moderate gastrointestinal discomforts. We may draw a profile of rheumatological patients willing to report ADRs: 1) The majority of them suffer from systemic inflammatory diseases and are slightly more prone to neurological comorbidities. 2) They are predominantly aware of their diagnosis but less able to identify the drugs that may cause their ADRs. 3) They tend to report mainly moderate gastrointestinal ADRs; that is, other cohorts of patients and other types of ADRs remain mainly undetected in such a reporting, which could represent a bias. Counseling and education of patients as well as developing a network for online communication might improve patients' reporting of potential ADRs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 18%
Student > Master 3 18%
Researcher 3 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 12%
Other 3 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 18%
Psychology 2 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 1 6%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 February 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,431
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#300,618
of 406,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#39
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 406,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.