Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011;6(12):e28096.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028096. Epub 2011 Dec 14.

Development and inter-rater reliability of the Liverpool adverse drug reaction causality assessment tool

Ruairi M Gallagher  1 , Jamie J Kirkham, Jennifer R Mason, Kim A Bird, Paula R Williamson, Anthony J Nunn, Mark A Turner, Rosalind L Smyth, Munir Pirmohamed
Affiliations

Development and inter-rater reliability of the Liverpool adverse drug reaction causality assessment tool

Ruairi M Gallagher et al. PLoS One. 2011.

Abstract

Aim: To develop and test a new adverse drug reaction (ADR) causality assessment tool (CAT).

Methods: A comparison between seven assessors of a new CAT, formulated by an expert focus group, compared with the Naranjo CAT in 80 cases from a prospective observational study and 37 published ADR case reports (819 causality assessments in total).

Main outcome measures: Utilisation of causality categories, measure of disagreements, inter-rater reliability (IRR).

Results: The Liverpool ADR CAT, using 40 cases from an observational study, showed causality categories of 1 unlikely, 62 possible, 92 probable and 125 definite (1, 62, 92, 125) and 'moderate' IRR (kappa 0.48), compared to Naranjo (0, 100, 172, 8) with 'moderate' IRR (kappa 0.45). In a further 40 cases, the Liverpool tool (0, 66, 81, 133) showed 'good' IRR (kappa 0.6) while Naranjo (1, 90, 185, 4) remained 'moderate'.

Conclusion: The Liverpool tool assigns the full range of causality categories and shows good IRR. Further assessment by different investigators in different settings is needed to fully assess the utility of this tool.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: RLS and MP are members of the Commission on Human Medicines. MP Chairs the Pharmacovigilance Expert Advisory Group, while RLS Chairs the Paediatric Medicines Expert Advisory Group.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flowchart of the development of the Liverpool ADR Causality Assessment Tool.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Liverpool ADR causality assessment tool.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Impicciatore P, Choonara I, Clarkson A, Provasi D, Pandolfini C, et al. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in paediatric in/out-patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. British Journal Of Clinical Pharmacology. 2001;52:77–83. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Clavenna A, Bonati M. Adverse drug reactions in childhood: a review of prospective studies and safety alerts. Arch Dis Child. 2009;94:724–728. - PubMed
    1. Agbabiaka TB, Savovic J, Ernst E. Methods for causality assessment of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf. 2008;31:21–37. - PubMed
    1. Turner WM. The Food and Drug Administration algorithm. Special workshop–regulatory. Drug Information Journal. 1984;18:259–266. - PubMed
    1. Arimone Y, Bidault I, Collignon AE, Dutertre JP, Gerardin M, et al. Updating of the French causality assessment method: 29. Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology. 2010;6

Publication types