J
Jeffrey K Aronson
Researcher at University of Oxford
Publications - 615
Citations - 20721
Jeffrey K Aronson is an academic researcher from University of Oxford. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Computer science. The author has an hindex of 55, co-authored 523 publications receiving 17323 citations. Previous affiliations of Jeffrey K Aronson include British Pharmacological Society & National Institute for Health Research.
Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Joining the DoTS: new approach to classifying adverse drug reactions
Jeffrey K Aronson,Robin E Ferner +1 more
TL;DR: A new classification system for adverse drug reactions based on time course and susceptibility as well as dose responsiveness should improve drug development and management of adverse reactions.
Journal ArticleDOI
Clarification of terminology in medication errors: definitions and classification.
Robin E Ferner,Jeffrey K Aronson +1 more
TL;DR: Terms that are used in the field of medication errors, particularly terms that are sometimes misunderstood or misused, are discussed and defined.
Journal ArticleDOI
Compliance, concordance, adherence.
TL;DR: The referral letter was brief and to the point: ‘This 81-year-old lady's heart failure is getting worse, with increasing peripheral oedema, despite maximal doses of a wide range of medications, listed below, Please advise.
Journal ArticleDOI
The need for randomization in animal trials: an overview of systematic reviews.
Jennifer Hirst,Jeremy Howick,Jeffrey K Aronson,Nia Roberts,Rafael Perera,Constantinos Koshiaris,Carl Heneghan +6 more
TL;DR: The study demonstrates the need for randomization, allocation concealment, and blind outcome assessment in animal research across a wide range of outcomes and disease areas and suggests that unduly biased animal studies should not be allowed to constitute part of the rationale for human trials.
Journal ArticleDOI
The evolution of evidence hierarchies: what can Bradford Hill's 'guidelines for causation' contribute?
TL;DR: The Bradford Hill ‘guidelines for causation’ are investigated and revised, in order to refine intuitions about whether to believe that intervention is effective and to contribute to their natural evolution and development.