Drug Safety

, Volume 6, Issue 5, pp 315–322 | Cite as

Recent Developments in Computer-Assisted Diagnosis of Putative Adverse Drug Reactions

  • Claudio A. Naranjo
  • Krista L. Lanctôt
Leading Article

Keywords

Adverse Drug Reaction Artificial Intelligence System Drug Regulatory Agency Adverse Drug Reac Addiction Research Foundation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bankowitz RA, McNeil MA, Challinor SM, Parker RC, Kapoor WM, et al. A computer-assisted medical diagnostic consultation service. Annals of Internal Medicine 110: 824–832, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bleich HL. Computer-based consultation: electrolyte and acid-base disorders. American Journal of Medicine 53: 285–291, 1972PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davis R, Buchanan B, Shortliffe E. Production rules as a representation for a knowledge-based consultation program. Artificial Intelligence 8: 15–45, 1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Dombal F. Computer-aided diagnosis of acute abdominal pain. British Medical Journal 2: 9–13, 1972PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Dombal F. Computer-aided decision suppport in clinical medicine. International Journal of Biomedical Computers 24: 9–16, 1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ghajar BM, Naranjo CA, Shear NH, Lanctôt KL. Improving the accuracy of the differential diagnosis of idiosyncratic adverse drug reactions (IADRs): skin eruptions and sulfonamides. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 47: 127, 1990Google Scholar
  7. Hutchinson TA, Dawid AP, Spiegelhalter DJ, Cowell RG, Roden S. Computerized aids for probabilistic assessment of drug safety. I: a spreadsheet program. Drug Information Journal 25: 29–39, 1991aCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hutchinson TA, Dawid AP, Spiegelhalter DJ, Cowell RG, Roden S. Computerized aids for probabilistic assessment of drug safety. II: an expert system. Drug Information Journal 25: 41–48, 1991bCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982Google Scholar
  10. Koch-Weser J, Sellers E, Zacest R. The ambiguity of adverse drug reactions. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 11: 75–86, 1977PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kramer MS, Levanthal JM, Hutchinson TA, Feinstein TR. An algorithm for the operational assessment of adverse drug reactions: I. Background description and instructions for use. Journal of the American Medical Association 242: 623–632, 1979PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lanctôt KL, Naranjo CA. Using microcomputers to simplify the Bayesian causality assessment of adverse drug reactions. Pharmaceutical Medicine 4: 185–195, 1990Google Scholar
  13. Lanctôt KL, Naranjo CA. Computer-assisted evaluation of adverse drug events. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, in press, 1991Google Scholar
  14. Lane DA, Kramer MS, Hutchinson TA, Jones JK, Naranjo CA. The causality assessment of adverse drug reactions using a Bayesian approach. Pharmaceutical Medicine 2: 265–283, 1987Google Scholar
  15. Mabry ME, Miller RA. Distinguishing drug toxicity syndromes from medical diseases: a QMR computer-based approach. Proceedings of the symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, IEEE. pp. 65–71, Computer Society Press, 1990Google Scholar
  16. Miller RA, McNeil MA, Challinor SM, Masarie Jr FE, Myers JD. The Internist 1/Quick Medical Reference project-status report. Western Medical Journal 145: 816–822, 1986Google Scholar
  17. Miller RA, Schaffner KF, Meisel A. Ethical and legal issues related to the use of computer programs in clinical medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine 102: 529–536, 1985PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Naranjo CA. A clinical pharmacological perspective on the detection and assessment of adverse drug reactions. Drug Information Journal 20: 387–393, 1986Google Scholar
  19. Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, Spino M, Sandor P, et al. A reliable method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 30: 239–245, 1981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Naranjo CA, Lanctôt KL, Lane DA. The Bayesian differential diagnosis of neutropenia associated with antiarrhythmic agents. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 30: 1120–1127, 1990aPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Naranjo CA, Lanctôt KL. Microcomputer-assisted Bayesian differential diagnosis of severe adverse reactions to new drugs: a 4-year experience. Drug Information Journal 25: 243–250, 1991aCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Naranjo CA, Lanctôt KL. Towards the development of international standards for the differential diagnosis of adverse drug events. In Ruiz Ferrán et al. (Eds) Communication in pharmaceutical medicine: a challenge for 1992, pp. 175–181, J.R. Prous, S.A., Barcelona, 1991bGoogle Scholar
  23. Naranjo CA, Lane D, Ho-Asjoe M, Lanctôt KL. A Bayesian assessment of idiosyncratic adverse reactions to new drugs: Guillain-Barré syndrome and zimeldine. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 30: 174–180, 1990bPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Reggia JA, Tuhrim S. Methods for computer-assisted medical decision making. In Reggia & Tuhrim (Eds) Computer-assisted medical decision making, Vol 1, pp. 3–45, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shear NH. Diagnosing cutaneous adverse reactions to drugs. Archives of Dermatology 126: 94–97, 1990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shortliffe EH. Computer programs to support clinical decision making. Journal of the American Medical Association 258: 61–66, 1987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Spiegelhalter DJ. Computers, expert systems, and ADRs: can causality assessment be automated? Drug Information Journal 20: 543–550, 1986Google Scholar
  28. Spielberg SP, Gordon GB, Blake DA, Goldstein DA, Herlong HF. Predisposition to phenytoin hepatoxicity assessed in vitro. New England Journal of Medicine 305: 722–727, 1981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stephens MDB. The diagnosis of adverse medical events associated with drug treatment. Adverse Drug Reactions and Acute Poisoning Reviews 6: 1–35, 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Sutton GC. Computer-aided diagnosis: a review. British Journal of Surgery 76: 82–85, 1989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Szolovits P, Patil RS, Schwartz WB. Artificial intelligence in medical diagnosis. Annals of Internal Medicine 108: 80–87, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Teach RL, Shortliffe EH. An analysis of physician attitudes regarding computer-based clinical consultation systems. Computers and Biomedical Research 14: 542–558, 1981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Way CW, Murphy JR, Dunn EL, Elerding SC. A feasibility study of computer aided diagnosis in appendicitis. Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics 155: 685–688, 1982PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Waxman HS, Worley WE. Computer-assisted adult medical diagnosis: subject review and evaluation of a new microcomputer-based system. Medicine 69: 125–136, 1990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudio A. Naranjo
    • 1
  • Krista L. Lanctôt
    • 1
  1. 1.Clinical Pharmacology Program, Addiction Research Foundation and Departments of Pharmacology and MedicineUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations