Overview of important methods used for causality assessment of adverse drug events in pharmacovigilance

  • Pushpraj Prafulla Gawai  Sector-2, Airoli, Thane, New Mumbai 400708, India.  
Keywords: Adverse Drug Events, Pharmacovigilance, Naranjo algorithm, WHO-UMC causality assessment, French imputability


Introduction: The method of assessing causality between adverse events and suspect drugs is the most challenging task in pharmacovigilance. It requires attentive consideration of both the adverse events and suspect drugs, patient-related factors, and co-suspect drugs and other medical conditions of the patient.

Objectives: This review aimed to look for different methods available or reported for causality assessment and give a brief comparison between the methods.

Methods: Many pieces of literature were reviewed to present a summary of commonly used important methods for causality assessment.

Results: Though different methods were developed to assess causality, no single method has been proved to produce an accurate or authentic ascertainable evaluation of the causal relationship.

Conclusions: Hence, causality assessment has become an important step in evaluating drug safety. Due to a lack of uniformity, reliability, and rationality, no single method can be accepted as a standard one across the world.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Pushpraj Prafulla Gawai , Sector-2, Airoli, Thane, New Mumbai 400708, India.  

Senior Aggregate Reports Writer,Drug Safety


Arimone, Y., Bégaud, B., Miremont-Salamé, G., Fourrier-Réglat, A., Molimard, M., Moore, N., & Haramburu, F. (2006). A new method for assessing drug causation provided agreement with experts' judgment. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 59(3), 308–314.

Bégaud, B., Evreux, J. C., Jouglard, J., & Lagier, G. (1985). Imputabilité des effets inattendus ou toxiques des médicaments. Actualisation de la méthode utilisée en France [Imputation of the unexpected or toxic effects of drugs. Actualization of the method used in France]. Therapie, 40(2), 111–118.

Benichou, C., Danan, G. (1992). Causality assessment in the European pharmaceutical industry: presentation of the preliminary results of a new method. Drug Information Journal, 26(4), 589-592.

Curtin, F., & Schulz, P. (2011). Assessing the benefit: risk ratio of a drug--randomized and naturalistic evidence. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 13(2), 183–190.

Danan, G., & Benichou, C. (1993). Causality assessment of adverse reactions to drugs--I. A novel method based on the conclusions of international consensus meetings: application to drug-induced liver injuries. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 46(11), 1323–1330.

Dangoumau, J., Evreux, J. C., & Jouglard, J. (1978). Méthode dímputabilité des effets indésirables des médicaments [Mehtod for determination of undesirable effects of drugs]. Therapie, 33(3), 373–381.

Ennis, M., Ohmann, C., Lorenz, W., Zaczyk, R., & Schöning, B. (1988). Prediction of risk for pseudoallergic reactions and histamine release in patients undergoing anaesthesia and surgery: a computer-aided model using independence-Bayes. Agents and actions, 23(3-4), 366–369.

Gawai, P. P. (2020). Introduction and evaluation of Pharmacovigilance for beginners. International Journal of Scientific Reports, 6(10), 425-432.

Horn, J. R., Hansten, P. D., & Chan, L. N. (2007). Proposal for a new tool to evaluate drug interaction cases. The Annals of pharmacotherapy, 41(4), 674–680.

Hoskins, R. E., & Mannino, S. (1992). Causality assessment of adverse drug reactions using decision support and informatics tools. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 1(5), 235-249.

Hutchinson, T. A. (1991). Computerized Bayesian ADE assessment. Drug Information Journal, 25(2), 235-241.

Hutchinson, T., Dawid, A., Spiegelhalter, D. (1991). Computerized aids for probabilistic assessment of drug safety: A spreadsheet program. Drug Information Journal, 25(1), 29-39.

Kramer, M. S., Leventhal, J. M., Hutchinson, T. A., & Feinstein, A. R. (1979). An algorithm for the operational assessment of adverse drug reactions. I. Background, description, and instructions for use. JAMA, 242(7), 623–632.

Macedo, A. F., Marques, F. B., Ribeiro, C. F., & Teixeira, F. (2005). Causality assessment of adverse drug reactions: comparison of the results obtained from published decisional algorithms and from the evaluations of an expert panel. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 14(12), 885–890.

Miremont-Salamé, G., Théophile, H., Haramburu, F., & Bégaud, B. (2016). Causality assessment in pharmacovigilance: The French method and its successive updates. Therapie, 71(2), 179–186.

Naidu R. P. (2013). Causality assessment: A brief insight into practices in pharmaceutical industry. Perspectives in clinical research, 4(4), 233–236.

Naranjo, C. A., Busto, U., Sellers, E. M., Sandor, P., Ruiz, I., Roberts, E. A., Janecek, E., Domecq, C., & Greenblatt, D. J. (1981). A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 30(2), 239–245.

Rehan, H. S., Chopra, D., & Kakkar, A. K. (2009). Physician's guide to pharmacovigilance: terminology and causality assessment. European journal of internal medicine, 20(1), 3–8.

Wiholm B. E. (1984). The Swedish drug-event assessment methods. Special workshop--regulatory. Drug information journal, 18(3-4), 267–269.

How to Cite
Gawai PP. Overview of important methods used for causality assessment of adverse drug events in pharmacovigilance. jpadr [Internet]. 2020Dec.1 [cited 2023Jun.9];1(2):6-12. Available from: https://jpadr.com/index.php/jpadr/article/view/13