Adverse drug reactions in the United States, Medicine in the Public Interest Inc., Washington, DC, 1974.
2.
AlbinHBegaudBBoisseauADangoumauJ: Validation des publications de'effets indesirables par une methode d'imputabiliteTherapie1980; 35:571–576.
3.
AuricheM: Approache Bayesienne de L'imputabilite des Phenomenes Undesirables aux Medicaments. Therapie, 1985; 40:301–306.
4.
AusmanRKKarchFEKramerMSJonesJKFeinsteinAR: Use of algorithms for assessing possible adverse drug reactions. Summary of talk by JK Jones. Communication at Standardizing Methods of Assessing Causality of Adverse Drug Reactions Meeting, Morges, June 14–18, 1981.
5.
Australian Drug Evaluation Committee: Report of suspected adverse drug reactions, No 4, pv., Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1978.
6.
BegaudBHaramburuFPereJCDangoumauJ: Les criteres d'imputabilite confrontes a la pratique: A propose de 1000 observationsTherapie1982; 37:415–420.
7.
BegaudBBoisseauAAlbinHDangoumauJ: Comparison de quatre methods d'imputabilite des effects indesirables des medicamentsTherapie1981; 36:65–70.
8.
BegaudBBoisseauAAlbinHDangoumauJ: Imputabilite des effects indesirables des medicaments: Etude de 194 observations. Therapie1978, 33:383.
9.
BegaudB, Standardized assessment of adverse drug reactions: The method used in FranceDrug Inf J1984; 18 (3/4):275–282.
10.
BegaudBPereJCDangoumauJ: Mise en oeuvre d'un critere: La bibliographieTherapie1981; 6:233–236.
11.
BennettBSLipmanAG: Comparative study of prospective surveillance and voluntary reporting in determining the incidence of adverse drug reactionsAm J Hosp Pharm1977; 34: 931–936.
12.
BenzecriJP: L'Analyse des Donnees, vol 2, L'Analyse de Correspondences. Paris, Dunod, 1973.
13.
BerdeB: The responsibility of the pharmaceutical industry, in TurnerP (ed): Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Proceedings of the First World Conference on Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.London, MacMillan Publishers, 1980, pp 572–576.
14.
BergerJPHallerEBlancEBrookeEMSchellingJL: Quelques facteurs intervenant dans les reactions adverses medicamenteusesSchweiz Med Wochenshr1975; 105:1706.
15.
BernekerGCVenuletJ: About the problem, in VenuletJBernekerGCCiucciAG (eds): Assessing Causes of Adverse Drug Reactions.London, Academic Press, 1982, pp 1–5.
16.
BlancSLeuenbergerPBergerJPBrookeEMSchellingJL: Judgments of trained observers on adverse drug reactionsClin Pharmacol Ther1979; 25:439–498.
17.
BoisseauABegaudBAlbinHDangoumauJ: Reevaluation du diagnostic d'effet indesirable des medicaments avec un recul de six moisTherapie1980; 35:577–580.
18.
BustoUNaranjoCASellersEM: Comparisons of two recently published algorithms to assess the probability of adverse drug reactions, Abstracted, Clin Pharmacol Ther1981; 29:236.
19.
BustoUNaranjoCASellersEM: Comparison of two recently published algorithms for assessing the probability of adverse drug reactionsBr J Clin Pharm1982; 13:233–227.
20.
CastleWM: Assessment of Causality in Industrial SettingsDrug Inf J1984; 18(3/4):297–302.
21.
DallyS: Toxicologie et epidemiologic, in Masson (ed): Toxicovigilance.Paris, Coll Med Legale et Toxicol, pp 323–343.
22.
DangoumauJBegaudB: Interactions medicamenteuses et pharmacovigilance — Communication Symposium Droit et Pharmacie. Interactions medicamenteuses, co-prescriptions et associations a doses fixes. Paris, March 9–10, 1981.
23.
DangoumauJEvreuxJCJouglardJ: Methode d'imputabilite des effects adverses des medicamentsTherapie1978; 33:373–381.
24.
DangoumauJBegaudBBoisseauAAlbinH: Methods d'identification et d'imputabilite des effects indesirables des medicamentsTherapie1980; 35:287.
25.
DangoumauJBegaudABoisseauAAlbinH: Les difficultes du diagnostic des effects indesirables des medicamentsBordeax Med1980; 13:283.
26.
DangoumauJBegaudABoisseauAAlbinH: Les difficultes du diagnostic des effects indesirables des medicamentsBordeaux Med1980; 13:283.
27.
DufaBW: No-fault or strict liability scheme in action — Sweden, in TurnerP (ed): Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Proceedings of the First World Conference on Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. London, MacMillan Publishers, 1980, pp 565–571.
28.
DukesMNG: The uses of causality assessment. Drug Inf J, 1984; 18(3/4):227–232.
29.
EmanueliASacchettiG: An algorithm for the classification of untoward events in large scale clinical trialsAgents and Actions1980; 73:318–322.
30.
EmanueliA: A Simple Algorithm for Assessing Causality of Adverse Reactions. Drug Inf J, 1984; 18(3/4):303–306.
31.
EmanueliASacchettiG: Post-marketing surveillance methodology as applied in a pharmaceutical medical department, in AurichMBurkeJDuchierJ (eds): Drug Safety — Progress and Controversies.Paris, Pergamon Press, 1982, pp 265–273.
32.
ErakerSASasseL: The serum digoxin test and digoxin toxicity: A Bayesian approach to decision making. Circulation, 1981; 64:409–42.
33.
EvreuxJCILoupieEVentreJJ: Essai d'evaluation de la responsabilite d'un effect adverse dans la survenue d'un decesTherapie1981; 36: 249–254.
34.
FeinsteinAR: Clinical biostatistics XLVII. Scientific standards vs statistical associations and biologic logic in the analysis of causationClin Pharmacol Ther1979; 25:481–492.
35.
FeinsteinAR: Clinical biostatistics XXVIII. The biostatistical problems of pharmaceutical surveillanceClin Pharmacol Ther1974; 16: 110.
36.
FeinsteinAR: Theoretical perspectives in causality assessment. Drug Inf J, 1984; 18(3/4): 219–226.
37.
FeinsteinARKramerMS: Clinical biostatistics LII. A primer on quantitative indexes of associationClin Pharmacol Ther1980; 28:130–145.
38.
FreilichWB: Legal perspectives in causality assessmentDrug Inf J1984; 18(3/4):211–218.
39.
HammondKRJoyceCRB: Psychological influences on human judgement, especially of adverse reactions, in GrossFHInmanWHW (eds): Drug Monitoring.London, Academic Press, 1977, pp 269–287.
40.
HasfordJ: Current concepts for assessing the drug — adverse event relationship and their problems, in AuricheMBurkeJDuchierJ (eds): Drug Safety — Progress and Controversies.Paris, Pergamon Press, 1982, p 257.
41.
HoigneRStreitCHGuleryuzDStockerRLepineAStuckiP: Fruherfassung and Bestimmung der Haufigkeit von Nebin-Wirkungen im Spital durch intensives (komprehensives)Soz Praventivmed1980; 25:18–22.
42.
HollandRR: Decision tables-their use for the presentation of clinical algorithmsJAMA1975; 233:455–457.
43.
HoskinsJDHurbertWTSeligJO: A questionnaire for the clinical assessment of veterinary adverse drug reactionsCornell Vet1982; 72:1–14.
44.
HutchinsonTALeventhalJMKramerMSKarchFELipmanAGFeinsteinAR: An algorithm for the operational assessment of adverse drug reactions, II Demonstration of reproducibility and validityJAMA1979; 243:633–638.
45.
IreyNS: Adverse drug reactions and death: A review of 827 casesJAMA1976; 236:575.
46.
IveryNS: Diagnostic problems in drug-induced diseases, in MeylerLPeckHM (eds): Drug-Induced Diseases.Amsterdam, Excerpta Medica, 1972, vol IV: 1.
47.
IreyNS: Tissue reactions to drugsAm J Pathol1976; 82: 617–647.
48.
IreyNS: Case report methods for assessing causalityDrug Inf J1984; 18(3/4):241–250.
49.
JamesDHallerERosseletGBrookeEMSchellingJL: Frequence des precriptions de medicaments et de leurs effects indesirables dans un department de medicineSchweiz Med Wochenschr1978; 108:1270–1277.
50.
JonesJK: Adverse drug reactions in the community health setting: Approaches to recognizing, counseling, and reportingFam Community Health1982; 5:58–67.
51.
JonesJK: Uses of drug-event assessmentDrug Inf J1984; 18(3/4):233–240.
52.
JonesJKDreisMPearsonKC: Summary of applicationsDrug Inf J1984; 18(3/4):319–322.
53.
JoubertPHVan RijssenJansen FWVenterJP: Drug side-effects assessed in “naturalistic” setting. S Afr Med J1977: 52:34–36.
54.
JoyceCRB: Identifying causes of disagreement in assessment of causality, in VenuletJBernekerGCCiucciAG (eds): Assessing Causes of Adverse Drug Reactions.London, Academic Press, 1982, pp 95–103.
55.
KahnemanDStovicPTvorskyA: Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.New York, Cambridge University Press, 1982.
56.
KarchFELasagnaL: Adverse drug reactions-a critical reviewJAMA1975; 234:1236.
57.
KarchFELasagnaL: Evaluating adverse drug reactions. Adverse Drug React Bull1976; 59.
58.
KarchFELasagnaL: Toward the operational identification of adverse drug reactionClin Pharmacol Ther1977; 21:247–254.
59.
KarchFESmithCLKerznerBMazulloJMWeintraubMLasagnaL: Adverse drug reactions — a matter of opinionClin Pharmacol Ther1976; 19:489–492.
60.
Koch-WeserJ: Validation of ADRs, in GrossFHInmanWHW (eds); Drug Monitoring.London, Academic Press, 1977, pp 79–89.
61.
Koch-WeserJGreenblattDJ: The ambiguity of adverse drug reactions, abstractedClin Pharmacol Ther1976; 19:110.
62.
Koch-WeserJSellersEMZacestR: The ambiguity of adverse drug reactionsEur J Clin Pharmacol1977; 11:75–78.
KramerMS: Assessing the causal relationship between drugs and their adverse effects. Drug Inf J1981 (July/Dec); 147–151.
65.
KramerMS: Difficulties in assessing the adverse effects of drugsBr J Clin Pharm1981; 11:108S–110S.
66.
KramerMSLeventhalJMHutchinsonTAFeinsteinAR: An algorithm for the operational assessment of adverse drug reactions: I Background, description, and instructions for useJAMA1979; 242:623–633.
67.
KramerMSHutchinsonTARudnickSALeventhalJMFeinsteinAR: Operational criteria for adverse drug reactions in evaluating suspected toxicity of a popular scabicideClin Pharmacol Ther1980; 27:149–292.
68.
KramerMSHutchinsonTA: The Yale algorithm. Drug Inf J1984: 18(3/4):283–292.
69.
LagierGVincensMCastotAEfthymiouML: Diagnostic differential des leucopenies medicamenteusesTherapie1982; 37:377–384.
70.
LagierGEvreuxJC: L'efficacite en pharmacovigilance-2 L'outil informatiqueTherapie1977; 32:151–159.
71.
LagierGVincensMCastolA: “Imputabilite en pharmacovigilance: Principes de la methode appreciative ponderee et principales erreurs a eviter.”Therapie1983; 38:303–318.
72.
LaneDA: A probablist's view of causality assessmentDrug Inf J1984; 18(3/4):323–330.
73.
LasagnaL: Bias in the elucidation of subject side effectsBr J Clin Pharm1981; 11:111S–1113S.
74.
LeroyOBegaudBDongoumauJPeytourPSalamonR: Etude comparative de quartre methodes d'imputabiliteTherapie1981; 36: 223–227.
75.
LeslerHFudingA: Pharmaceutical law in the United States, in InmanWHW (ed): Monitoring for Drug Safety.London, MacMillan Publishers, 1980, pp 511–529.
76.
LeventhalJMHutchinsonTAKramerMSFeinsteinAR: An algorithm for the operational assessment of adverse drug reactions III. Results of tests among cliniciansJAMA1979; 242:1991–1994.
77.
MaistrelloIGrassiGBertolinoAValerioPPistollatoGSoveriniS: Unwanted symptoms in depressed patients treated with viloxazine: An algorithm for identification of illness-related symptomsEur J Clin Pharmacol1983; 24: 277–281.
78.
MashfordML: The Australian method of drugevent assessmentDrug Inf J1984; 18(3/4): 271–274.
79.
MayerIMeuthMSchumacherR: Intensive Drug Monitoring Medizinische, dissertation. Universitat Heidelberg, 1979.
80.
McGeerEG: Neurotransmitter systems in aging and senile dementhiaProg Neuropsychopharmacol1981; 5:435–445.
81.
Meddelande fran Lakemeddsbiverknings Kommitten (Swedish). Meddelande No 20, 1974.
82.
MillerRR: Interpretation of studies on adverse drug reactionsAm J Hosp Pharm1977; 34: 753–754.
83.
NaranjoCAFornazzariLSellersEM: Clinical detection and assessment of drug-induced neurotoxicityProg Neuropsychopharmacol1981;5:427–434.
84.
NaranjoCABustoUSellersEMSpinoMSandorPRuizIRobertsEAJanacekEGreenblattDJ: Improved reliability using a rating scale to assess the probability of adverse drug reactions, abstracted. World Conference on Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, London, 1980.
85.
NaranjoCABustoUSellersEMSandorPRuizIRobertsEAJanacekEDomecqCGreenblattDJ: A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactionsClin Pharmacol Ther1981; 30:239–245.
86.
NaranjoCABustoUAbelJGSellersEM: Empiric delineation of the probability spectrum of adverse drug reactions, abstractedClin Pharmacol Ther1981; 29:267–268.
87.
NaranjoCAPontigoEValdenegroCGonzalezGRuizIBustoU: Furosemide-induced adverse reactions in cirrhosis of the liverClin Pharmacol Ther1979; 25:154–160.
88.
PereJLBegaudBAlbinHDangoumauJ: Effects indesirables non decrit? — De L'observations aux donnees de la litteratureTherapie1981;36:237–240.
89.
PetrieWMLevineJ: The assessment of adverse drug reactions in clinical trialsInt Pharmacopsychiatry1978; 13:209–216.
90.
RuizINaranjoCACampilloG: Influence de l'insuffisance renale sur la frequence des effects indesirables des medicamentsTherapie1977; 32:271–281.
91.
SalamonRPeytourP: Recherche due poids des criteres dans un algorithme d'imputabiliteTherapie1981; 36:229–231.
92.
SeidlLGThorntonGFCluffLE: Epidemiological studies of adverse drug reactionsAm J Public Health1965; 55:1170.
93.
SellersEM: Adverse drug reactions: Uncommon or unrecognized?Clin Med Assoc J1979; 120:1200–1201.
94.
ShapiroS: Problems in the detection and quantification of adverse drug reactionsDrug Inf J1984; 18(3/4):251–254.
95.
SiehrKG: Drug reactions and the law in the European Economic Community, in InmanWHW (ed): Monitoring for Drug Safety.London, MacMillan Publishers, 1980, pp 489–509.
96.
SiehrKG: Regulatory and legal aspects, in VenuletGCBernekerAGCiucciAG (eds): Assessing Causes of Adverse Drug Reactions.London, Academic Press, 1982, 129–141.
97.
SoxHC: Probability theory in use of diagnostic testsAnn Intern Med1986; 104:60–66.
98.
SpitzerRLFleissJLEndicottJ: Problems of classification: Reliability and validity, in LiptonMADiMascoAKillamKF (eds): Psycho-pharmacology: A Generation of Progress.New York, Raven Press, 1978, pp 857–869.
99.
StephensM: Assessment of causality in industrial settingsDrug Inf J1984; 18(3/4):307–314.
100.
TallaridaRJMurrayRBEibenC: A scale for assessing the severity of diseases and adverse drug reactionsClin Pharmacol Ther1979; 25: 381–390.
101.
TurnerW: The Food and Drug Administration AlgorithmDrug Inf J1984; 18(3/4):259–266.
102.
VenningGR: Validity of anecdotal reports of suspected adverse drug reactions: The problem of false alarmsBr Med J1982; 284:249–252.
103.
VenuletJ: Methods of monitoring adverse reactions to drugs, in JuckerE (ed): Progress in Drug Research.Basel, Birkhauser Verlag, 1972, vol 21, pp 233–292.
104.
VenuletJ: Aspects of standardization as applied to the assessment of drug-event associationDrug Inf J1984; 18(3/4): 199–210.
105.
VenuletJ: The Ciba-Geigy approach to causalityDrug Inf J1984; 18(3/4):315–318.
106.
VenuletJBlattnerRRVon BulowJBernekerGC: How good are articles on adverse drug reactions?Br Med J1982; 284:252–254.
107.
VenuletJ: Monitoring adverse drug reactions — the problem of integration of heterogenous dataInt J Clin Pharmacol Biopharm1979; 17: 383–386.
108.
VenuletJCiucciAG: Assessment of the cause and effect relationship of suspected adverse drug reactions, in AuricheMBurkeJDuchierJ (eds): Drug Safety — Progress and Controversies.Paris, Pergamon Press, 1982, pp 83–91.
109.
VenuletJBernekerGCCiucciAG, (eds): Assessing Causes of Adverse Drug Reactions.London, Academic Press, 1982.
110.
VenuletJCiucciABernekerGC: Standardized assessment of drug-adverse reaction associations — rationale and experienceInt J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol1980; 18:381–388.
111.
WeintraubM: The general clinical pharmacology ‘bias elimination’ methodDrug Inf J1984; 18(3/4):293–296.
112.
WeberJCP: Storage and retrieval of data on adverse reactions to drugs. Communication at Standardizing Method of Assessing Causality of Adverse Drug Reactions Meeting, Morges, June 14–18, 1981, in VenuletJBernekerGCCiucciAG (eds): Assessing Causes of Adverse Reactions.London, Academic Press, 1982.
113.
WHO'SReport of suspect drug reaction, 1981.
114.
WilliamsRN: Principles of no-fault or strict liability, in TurnerP (ed): Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Proceedings of the First World Conference on Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. London, MacMillan Publishers, 1980, pp 557–564.
115.
WilmersJ: The law in relation to unforeseen adverse drug reactions in the United Kingdom, in InmanWHW (ed): Monitoring for Drug Safety.Lancaster, TP Press, 1980, pp 483–488.
116.
WiholmB-E.The Swedish drug-event assessment method. Drug Inf J1984; 18(3/4):267–270.