Anecdotes that provide definitive evidence
- 14 December 2006
- Vol. 333 (7581), 1267-1269
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39036.666389.94
Abstract
When a criminal is caught in the act, other evidence is unnecessary. Should the same be true for adverse drug reactions? Many adverse drug reactions are first reported anecdotally. Anecdotal reports, by which we mean either individual cases or small case series, are generally regarded as providing poor quality evidence. They therefore usually require formal verification through robust epidemiological studies or clinical trials, although a minority are actually verified.1 However, we propose that some adverse drug reactions are so convincing, even without traditional chronological causal criteria such as challenge tests, that a well documented anecdotal report can provide convincing evidence of a causal association and further verification is not needed. Such reactions could serve as gold standards for use, for example, when validating pharmacovigilance systems or assessing the quality of systematic reviews of adverse drug reactions and the methods used to perform them. Specificity of an adverse drug reaction has previously been discussed as a concept2 but to our knowledge has never been fully developed. We have identified four types of spontaneously reported adverse events for which causal or contributory attribution to the drug is either irrefutable or demonstrable with a high level of confidence (table⇓): In each case the diagnosis can be established definitively, or with a high degree of certainty, in the individual patient. In some cases the diagnostic value of the event can be enhanced by further investigation, but the conclusion will always be related to the person affected. View this table: Examples of definitive anecdotal adverse drug reactions This …This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- Case reports of suspected adverse drug reactions—systematic literature survey of follow-upBMJ, 2006
- Pasteur and parachutes: when statistical process control is better than a randomized controlled trialHeart, 2005
- Acute low back pain during intravenous administration of amiodarone: a report of two casesInternational Journal of Cardiology, 2005
- Photopatch Testing in Seven Cases of Photosensitive Drug EruptionsAnnals of Pharmacotherapy, 2001
- Ciprofloxacin microprecipitates and macroprecipitates in the human corneal epitheliumJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, 2001
- In Defense of Case Reports and Case SeriesAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2001
- Quantitative estimation of rare adverse events which follow a biological progression: a new model applied to chronic NSAID usePain, 2000
- Detection of mumps virus genome directly from clinical samples and a simple method for genetic differentiation of the Hoshino vaccine strain from wild strains of mumps virus.1997
- Aluminium and injection site reactions.Journal of Clinical Pathology, 1996
- Determining Optimal Therapy — Randomized Trials in Individual PatientsThe New England Journal of Medicine, 1986