Supplementarytable 1. General Characteristic Ofthe Included All Age Group Studies

SupplementaryTable 1. General characteristic ofthe included all age group studies

Study / Country /
Publ. Year / Study duration in month (period) / Study ward / Popula-tioncharactersitcs Mean/Median* (Age range/95% CI* /IQR**/SD***) / Patients with ADR characteristics Mean/ Median* (Age range/95% CI*/IQR**/SD***) / ADR Identific-ation Method / Identi-
fied by / ADR Def. used / ADR assessment for / Total study sample / % of PADRAd / Prevalence of PADRAd / Prevalence of ADRAd
Causa-lity / Prevent-ability (process of assessment) / Severity
Alexopoulou et al. [19] / Greece
2008 / 6 (Jan to June 2005) / IM / 65 (15 – 100) / 70.8 (68.9-72.7*) / I (patients and family members), MRR (medical book and written medication plan) / C / WHO / Naranjo algorithm / Hallas et al.
(NS) / Pearson 1994 / 548 / 40.54 / 5.47 / 12.77
Al-Arifi et al. [20] / Saudi Arabia
2014 / 1 (17th Sept to 16th Oct 2011) / ED / All patients (Paediatric, adults and elderly)
51 (47**) / 51 (47**) / I (patient), MRR (patient file) / P / Karch&
Lasagna (Looks similar to WHO) / Not done / Nelson &Talbert (NS) / Singh et al. / 300 / 52.94 / 3 / 5.67
Dormann et al. [23] / Germany
2003 / 13 (Jan 1998 to Jan 1999) / IM / 54 (17 - 97) / NS / MRR (chart review through computerised monitoring system) / C,P,CP / WHO / Naranjo algorithm / SchumokThronton
(initially reviewed by pharmacoepidemiological team
and discrepancy resolved by staff physician) / Dormann 2000 / 915 / 44.44 / ---- / 3.83
Dormann et al. [24] / Germany
2004 / 12 + 6 months for related readmission (NS) / IM / 57*
(18 - 97) / NS / MRR (chart review through computerised monitoring system) / C,P / WHO / Naranjo algorithm / Schumok&Thronton ( assessed by pharmacoepidemiological team) / Dormann 2000 / 844 / 50.00 / 3.08 / 5.69
Grenouillet et al. [30] / France
2007 / 6(May to Oct 2003) / MICU / All patients ≥ 15 / 64 (17***) / I (patient, family members, physician), MRR (computerised screening according to ICD-10, hospital medical ﬁles and forms) / C,CP / Edwards & Aronson / French causality assessment method, Naranjo / Nebeker et al, Cullen et al(review panel by consensus) / WHO / 405 / 47.73 / ----- / 27.41
Hopf et al.
[31] / UK
2008 / 0.5 (22nd May to 5th June 2006) / WH / All patients >16 / 67 (19-91) / NS (used pre-defined screening form) / P,CP / WHO / Naranjo algorithm / Hallas et al.
(NS) / NS / 1101 / 83.33 / 2.27 / 2.72
Bénard-Laribièreet al. [32] / France
2015 / 7 (Dec 2006 to June 2007) / IM / All patients ≤ 15 - ≥ 75 / 69* (45-83**) / MRR (all medical charts) / C,CP / WHO / NS / French ADR Preventability Scale (reviewed and validated by an independent committee) / NS / 2692 / 48.45 / 1.75 / 3.60
Olivier et al.
[33] / France
2002 / 4
(May to Oct 1998) / ED / All patients > 15 / 58 (22.2***) / MRR (medical chart review) / C,CP / WHO / French causality assessment method / French ADR Preventability Scale (initially by two of the authorsand later on by other team members) / CIOMS definition / 671 / 34.09 / ----- / 6.11
Pirmohamed et al. [34] / UK
2004 / 6 (Nov 2001 to April 2002) / WH / All patients >16 / 76* (65-83**) / I (patients / relatives / general practitioner for drug details), MRR (random case notes of 400 patients) / P,N / Edwards & Aronson / Naranjo algorithm / Hallas et al. (by trained staff members) / NS / 18820 / 71.84 / 4.68 / 6.51
Ruiz et al. [38] / Spain
2008 / 21 (July 2001 to April 2003) / WH / All patients ≤50 to > 80 / NS / I (patient asked to fill predefined questionnaire), MRR (hospital computer system, clinical records) / NS / WHO / Karch&Lassagna / Schumok&Thronton (NS) / NS / 1802 / 34.57 / 1.55 / 4.50
Wasserfallen
et al. [39] / Switzerland
2001 / 6 (10th Jan to 10th July 1994) / ED / 61.4 (16-93) / -- / I (patient, hospital physician,family practitioner), MRR (Admission book, hospital chart) / CP / WHO / ND / Livio et al. (NS) / NS / 4840 / 31.88 / 1.51 / 4.73

ADR- adverse drug reaction; ADRAd – ADR leads to hospitalization; PADRAd – PreventableADRAdPubl.- Publication; UK – United Kingdom; NS- not stated; MICU- Medical intensive care unit; ED- Emergency department; WH- Wholehospital; IM- Internal medicine; ADR Identification Method: I(Interview), MRR(Medical record review), ICD-10 (International Classiﬁcation of Diseases);Identified by: C(Clinician/Physician), P(Pharmacist), N(Nursing staff), CP(Clinical Pharmacologist); WHO - world health organisation; CIOMS- council for international organisation of medical science

Supplementary Table 2. General characteristic ofthe included paediatric age group studies

ADR- adverse drug reaction; ADRAd – ADR leads to hospitalization; PADRAd – PreventableADRAd Publ.- Publication; UK – United Kingdom; NS- not stated; ED- Emergency department; PD- Paediatric department; ADR Identification Method: I(Interview), MRR(Medical record review);Identified by: C(Clinician/Physician), P(Pharmacist); WHO - world health organisation

Supplementary Table 3. General characteristic ofthe elderly included studies

ADR- adverse drug reaction; ADRAd – ADR leads to hospitalization; PADRAd – PreventableADRAd Publ.- Publication; NS- not stated; ED- Emergency department; GD- Geriatric department; ADR Identification Method: I(Interview), MRR(Medical record review);Identified by: C(Clinician/Physician), P(Pharmacist), CP(Clinical Pharmacologist); WHO - world health organisation

SupplementaryTable 4. General characteristic ofthe included not specified age group studies

Study / Country /
Publ. Year / Study duration in month (period) / Study ward / Popula-tion charactersitcs Mean/Median* (Age range/95% CI* /IQR**/SD***) / Patients with ADR characteristics Mean/ Median* (Age range/95% CI*/IQR**/SD***) / ADR Identific-ation Method / Identi-
fied by / ADR Def. used / ADR assessment for / Total study sample / % of PADRAd / Prevalence of PADRAd / Prevalence of ADRAd
Causa-lity / Prevent-ability (process of assessment) / Severity
Ahern et al.[18] / Ireland
2014 / 1 (June to July 2010) / ED / NS / 68.8 (18.0***) / MRR (ED admissions logbook within 24 hr of admission) / P / WHO / Naranjo algorithm / Hallas et al. (through agreement between review panel and adoption of predefined classification system in case of disagreement) / ND / 856 / 57.33 / 5.02 / 8.76
Davies et al.
[22] / UK
2010 / 12 (NS) / WH / NS / 72* (56-81**) / MRR (hospital patient administration system, case note review) / P / Edwards & Aronson / Naranjo algorithm / Hallas et al.
(initially assessed by two investigators and discussion on discrepancies) / ND / 403 / 57.14 / ---- / 18.11
Doshi et al.
[25] / India
2012 / 18 (Dec 2007 to June 2009) / GM / NS / NS / NS / C,N,CP / WHO / WHO-UMC&
Naranjo / SchumokThronton
(NS) / Hartwig / 6601 / 42.22 / ----- / 0.67
Rottenkolberet al. [36] / 2011 / 6 (Jan 2006 to Dec 2007) / IM / NS / 71 (17-103) / MRR (predeﬁned screening criteria, reviewing medical history) / CP, P / WHO / Begaud et al / SchumokThronton (NS) / Hartwig / 57000 / 18.06 / 0.65 / 3.25
Rivkin et al. [37] / USA
2007 / 6 (Dec 2004 to May 2005) / MICU &IM / NS / NS / MRR (patient charts) / P / WHO / Naranjo algorithm / SchumokThronton
(initially by two investigators and disagreement resolved by third investigators) / Hartwig / 281 / 85.71 / 6.41 / 7.47

ADR- adverse drug reaction; ADRAd – ADR leads to hospitalization; PADRAd – PreventableADRAd Publ.- Publication; UK – United Kingdom; USA – United States of America; NS- not stated; MICU- Medical intensive care unit; ED- Emergency department; WH- Wholehospital; GM- General medicine; IM- Internal medicine; ADR Identification Method: I(Interview), MRR(Medical record review);Identified by: C(Clinician/Physician), P(Pharmacist), N(Nursing staff), CP(Clinical Pharmacologist); WHO-UMC world health organisation- Uppsala monitoring centre