Publication: Patient-reported questionnaires to identify adverse drug reactions: A systematic review
Issued Date
2021-11-01
Resource Type
ISSN
16604601
16617827
16617827
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85118923599
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Vol.18, No.22 (2021)
Suggested Citation
Renly Lim, Lisa Kalisch Ellett, Elizabeth E. Roughead, Phaik Yeong Cheah, Nashwa Masnoon Patient-reported questionnaires to identify adverse drug reactions: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Vol.18, No.22 (2021). doi:10.3390/ijerph182211877 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/77000
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Patient-reported questionnaires to identify adverse drug reactions: A systematic review
Abstract
Background: This systematic review aims to summarise available patient-reported questionnaires to detect adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that can be utilised by healthcare professionals in clinical practice and to summarise the psychometric properties (validity, reliability, and responsiveness) of the questionnaires. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, Pubmed, Embase, and Emcare databases to screen for articles published between January 2000 and July 2020. Data items regarding validity, reliability, and responsiveness were extracted independently by two authors. The methodological quality was assessed using the COSMIN (Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) checklist. Results: A total of 1563 unique article titles were identified after removing duplicates. Following shortlisting of relevant articles, 19 patient-reported ADR questionnaires were identified. Questionnaires most commonly focused on mental health medications (42.1%, n = 8), followed by general questionnaires applicable to any medication (21.1%, n = 4). Many questionnaires did not report assessing the validity and reliability of the measurement tool. For example, only 11 questionnaires (58%) mentioned assessing content validity, in addition to criterion or construct testing. Conclusion: This systematic review summarised the available patient-reported questionnaires that can be used in research and clinical practice to identify ADRs. Results of this systematic review highlight the need for more robust validity and reliability testing when developing patient-reported ADR questionnaires.