Causality assessment is an algorithm proposed by WHO to identify a causal relationship between vaccines and adverse events following immunization (AEFIs), mostly for serious adverse events. It can be considered consistent, inconsistent, indeterminate or unclassifiable. This study describes AEFIs reported in Puglia from 2013 to 2016 and analyzes the differences between the causality assessments performed on AEFI case-report information and the causality assessments performed after the examination of clinical documentation. 292 AEFI were reported: 191 (65.4%) non serious, 59 (20.2%) serious and 42 (14.4%) undefined. Causality assessment performed on the AEFI case-report information classified 59.2% (n=29/49) of serious AEFIs as consistent while assessment performed after clinical review only classified 30.6% (n=15/49) of serious AEFI as consistent (X2=65.0; p=0,000). In the first approach, inconsistent serious AEFIs were 18.6% (n=11/49) and then became 45.8% (n=27/49) after examination of clinical documentation. Indeterminate serious AEFIs were 6.8% (n=4) at first, and then 3.4% (n=2). Unclassifiables did not change.

Systematic use of causality assessment in AEFI surveillance: A 2013-2016 pilot study in Puglia

Stefanizzi P.
Investigation
;
Tafuri S.
Supervision
;
Quarto M.
Supervision
2017

Abstract

Causality assessment is an algorithm proposed by WHO to identify a causal relationship between vaccines and adverse events following immunization (AEFIs), mostly for serious adverse events. It can be considered consistent, inconsistent, indeterminate or unclassifiable. This study describes AEFIs reported in Puglia from 2013 to 2016 and analyzes the differences between the causality assessments performed on AEFI case-report information and the causality assessments performed after the examination of clinical documentation. 292 AEFI were reported: 191 (65.4%) non serious, 59 (20.2%) serious and 42 (14.4%) undefined. Causality assessment performed on the AEFI case-report information classified 59.2% (n=29/49) of serious AEFIs as consistent while assessment performed after clinical review only classified 30.6% (n=15/49) of serious AEFI as consistent (X2=65.0; p=0,000). In the first approach, inconsistent serious AEFIs were 18.6% (n=11/49) and then became 45.8% (n=27/49) after examination of clinical documentation. Indeterminate serious AEFIs were 6.8% (n=4) at first, and then 3.4% (n=2). Unclassifiables did not change.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
STEFANIZZI_EMBJ.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Documento in Versione Editoriale
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 380.18 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
380.18 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11586/242271
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact