Abstract
Background
Global introspection is, with operational algorithms and Bayes’ theorem, one of the three main approaches used to assess the causal relationship between a drug treatment and the occurrence of an adverse event.
Objective
To analyze and compare the judgments of five senior experts using global introspection about drug causation on a random set of putative adverse drug reactions.
Methods
A random sample of 150 drug-effect pairs was constituted. For each pair, five senior experts had to independently assess the probability of drug causation from 0 to 1 by using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). For analysis, those probabilities were secondarily split into seven levels of causality: excluded (0–0.05); unlikely (0.06–0.25); doubtful (0.26–0.45); unassessable/unclassifiable (0.46–0.55); plausible (0.56–0.75); likely (0.75–0.95); and certain (0.95–1). Agreement among the five experts was assessed using kappa coefficients (κ).
Results
The overall agreement between experts was poor (κ=0.20), although significantly different from chance, and varied according to the level of causality. It was lower for the unlikely, doubtful, unassessable/unclassifiable, and plausible categories (κ=0.03, 0.03, −0.01, and 0.13, respectively) than for VAS extremes: excluded, likely, and certain (κ=0.40, 0.32, and 0.30, respectively).
Conclusion
This study confirms that experts express marked disagreements when assessing drug causality independently. The agreement rate was lower for intermediate levels of causality, especially when strong evidence was lacking for confirming or ruling out drug causality. Therefore, in a decision-making context, a step-by-step consensual approach such as the Delphi method seems necessary to make the assessment of such cases more reliable.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Meyboom RH, Hekster YA, Egberts AC, Gribnau FW, Edwards IR (1997) Causal or casual? The role of causality assessment in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 17:374–389
Stephens MD (1987) The diagnosis of adverse medical events associated with drug treatment. Adverse Drug React Acute Poisoning Rev 6:1–35
Lanctôt KL, Naranjo CA (1995) Comparison of the Bayesian approach and a simple algorithm for assessment of adverse drug events. Clin Pharmacol Ther 58:692–698
Auriche M (1985) Approche bayésienne de l’imputabilité des phénomènes indésirables aux médicaments. Therapie 40:301–306
Kramer MS (1989) Imputabilité des effets indésirables: individu (analyse du cas) versus groupe (épidémiologie). In: 3es entretiens Jacques Cartier, pp 31–44
Bégaud B (2000) Dictionary of pharmacoepidemiology. Wiley, Chichester
Hutchinson TA, Lane DA (1989) Assessing methods for causality assessment of suspected adverse drug reactions. J Clin Epidemiol 42:5–16
Péré JC, Godin MH, Bégaud B, Haramburu F, Albin H (1985) Sensibilité et spécificité des critères d’imputabilité Etude et comparaison de ces indices d’efficacité pour sept méthodes. Therapie 40:307–312
Pouyanne P, Haramburu F, Imbs JL, Bégaud B (2000) Admissions to hospital caused by adverse drug reactions: cross sectional incidence study French Pharmacovigilance Centres. BMJ 320:1036
Hutchinson TA, Flegel KM, HoPingKong H, Bloom WS, Kramer MS, Trummer EG (1983) Reasons for disagreement in the standardized assessment of suspected adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 34:421–426
Blanc S, Leuenberger P, Berger JP, Brooke EM, Schelling JL (1979) Judgments of trained observers on adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 25:493–498
Leventhal JM, Hutchinson TA, Kramer MS, Feinstein AR (1979) An algorithm for the operational assessment of adverse drug reactions. III. Results of tests among clinicians. JAMA 242:1991–1994
Karch FE, Smith CL, Kerzner B, Mazzullo JM, Weintraub M, Lasagna L (1976) Adverse drug reactions-a matter of opinion. Clin Pharmacol Ther 19:489–492
Kramer MS (1981) Difficulties in assessing the adverse effects of drugs. Br J Clin Pharmacol 11(Suppl 1):105S–110S
Koch-Weser J, Sellers EM, Zacest R (1977) The ambiguity of adverse drug reactions. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 11:75–78
Huskisson EC (1974) Measurement of pain. Lancet 2:1127–1131
Lagier G, Vincens M, Castot A (1983) Imputability in drug monitoring. Principles of the balanced drug reaction assessment method and principal errors to avoid. Therapie 38:303–318
Miremont G, Haramburu F, Bégaud B, Péré JC, Dangoumau J (1994) Adverse drug reactions: physicians’ opinions versus a causality assessment method. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 46:285–289
Macedo AF, Marques FB, Ribeiro CF, Teixeira F (2003) Causality assessment of adverse drug reactions: comparison of the results obtained from published decisional algorithms and from the evaluations of an expert panel, according to different levels of imputability. J Clin Pharm Ther 28:137–143
Venulet J, Ciucci A, Berneker GC (1980) Standardized assessment of drug-adverse reaction associations–rationale and experience. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol 18:381–388
Feinstein AR (1974) Clinical biostatistics XXX. Biostatistical problems in ’compliance bias’. Clin Pharmacol Ther 16:846–857
Péré JC, Bégaud B, Haramburu F, Albin H (1986) Computerized comparison of six adverse drug reaction assessment procedures. Clin Pharmacol Ther 40:451–461
Graham B, Regehr G, Wright JG (2003) Delphi as a method to establish consensus for diagnostic criteria. J Clin Epidemiol 56:1150–1156
Acknowledgements
This study was funded as a research project by a grant from the non-profit-making association, ARME-Pharmacovigilance (Bordeaux, France) and supported by the Agence Françoise de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits de Santé. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Jacques Caron (Centre régional de Pharmacovigilance, Lille), Georges Lagier (Centre régional de Pharmacovigilance, Paris Fernand Widal), Louis Merle, (Centre régional de Pharmacovigilance, Limoges) and Thierry Vial (Centre régional de Pharmacovigilance, Lyon).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Arimone, Y., Bégaud, B., Miremont-Salamé, G. et al. Agreement of expert judgment in causality assessment of adverse drug reactions. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 61, 169–173 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-004-0869-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-004-0869-2