ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2007
Patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a review of published literature and international experience.
Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 131 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
131 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 308 citations in OpenAlex.
- Empowering citizens to spontaneously report suspected adverse drug reaction: Systematic literature review of interventions and their impact.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Factors associated with underreporting of adverse drug reactions by patients: a systematic review.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Pooled it
- Potential negative impact of informing patients about medication side effects: a systematic review.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2018Pooled it
- The value of patient reporting to the pharmacovigilance system: a systematic review.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017Pooled it
- Views of healthcare professionals to linkage of routinely collected healthcare data: a systematic literature review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2014Pooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- Development and Initial Validation of a Patient-Reported Adverse Drug Event Questionnaire.Drug safety · 2013Trial
- Geriatric conditions, medication use, and risk of adverse drug events in a predominantly male, older veteran population.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2011Trial
- Do consumers and healthcare professionals report the same adverse event differently? A paired analysis of duplicate vaccine safety reports in Norway.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Adverse drug reactions associated with doxorubicin and epirubicin: A descriptive analysis from VigiBase.Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners · 2026Article
- An analysis of awareness and acceptability of the Medicines Side Effect Reporting Form for Consumer and the quality of data entered by consumers - An Indian perspective.Indian journal of pharmacology · 2025Article
- The Role of Adverse Event Follow-Up in Advancing the Knowledge of Medicines and Vaccines Safety: A Scoping Review.Drug safety · 2025Article
- Trends in adverse drug reaction reporting in eight selected countries after the implementation of new pharmacovigilance regulation in 2012: a joinpoint regression analysis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Disproportionality analysis of European safety reports on autoimmune and rheumatic diseases following COVID-19 vaccination.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Oropharyngeal Adverse Events to Drugs and Vaccines: Pharmacovigilance Data From Italy (2019-2021).Oral diseases · 2025Article
- Pregnancy Recommendations Solely Based on Preclinical Evidence Should Be Integrated with Real-World Evidence: A Disproportionality Analysis of Certolizumab and Other TNF-Alpha Inhibitors Used in Pregnant Patients with Psoriasis.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Accuracy in patient-reported adverse drug reactions and their recognition: a mixed-methods study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
- Safety of Dual Orexin Receptor Antagonist Daridorexant: A Disproportionality Analysis of Publicly Available FAERS Data.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Promoting Collaboration of Regulators and Patients in Improving Drug Safety and Regulatory Decision Making.Drug safety · 2024Article
71 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo synthesize data from published studies and international experience to identify evidence of potential benefits and drawbacks of direct patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) by patients.
methodsStructured search of MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO supplemented by internet searches and requests for information to key contacts.
resultsSeven studies (eight papers) were included in the review. None of the studies concerned spontaneous reporting by patients. Information on patient reporting systems was obtained for six countries, with summary data reported by four. Patient reports identified possible new ADRs that had not previously been reported by health professionals. The quality of patient reports appears to be similar to that of health professional reports. There is some evidence that patients report an ADR when they consider their health professional has not paid attention to their concerns. Patient reports may, at least initially, be more time consuming to process.
conclusionsOverall, the evidence indicates that patient reporting of suspected ADRs has more potential benefits than drawbacks. Evaluation of patient reporting systems is needed to provide further evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.