Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10612268›Full record

ReviewDrug safety1999

Pharmacovigilance in perspective.

R H Meyboom, A C Egberts, F W Gribnau, Y A Hekster

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drug safety, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Current status and future prospects of pharmacovigilance in Pakistan.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

R H MeyboomNetherlands Pharmacovigilance Foundation LAREB,'s-Hertogenbosch.
A C Egberts
F W Gribnau
Y A Hekster

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pharmacovigilance is more than spontaneous reporting alone, and the evaluation of marketed medicines is more than just pharmacovigilance. The positioning of a drug usually takes place during the years following introduction, when worldwide experience has accumulated. Originally a modest appendix of drug regulation, pharmacovigilance has become a major activity. The provision of the information needed for the evaluation of the benefits and risks of drugs is in the first place a scientific challenge. In addition, there are important ethical, logistical, legal, financial and commercial constraints. Good pharmacovigilance practice needs to be developed to ensure that data are collected and used in the right way and for the right purpose. Pharmacovigilance, and more generally the study of the benefits and risks of drugs, plays a major role in pharmacotherapeutic decision-making, be it individual, regional, national or international. In addition, pharmacovigilance is becoming a scientific discipline in its own right. A variety of changes are taking place in the complex system of drug development, regulation and distribution. Pharmacovigilance should be proactive in monitoring their possible consequences.

Indexed as

Drug MonitoringAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsDecision MakingHumansToxicology

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.