ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2009
Effects of e-mails containing ADR information and a current case report on ADR reporting rate and quality of reports.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 7 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Improving adverse drug event reporting by healthcare professionals.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Educational interventions in pharmacovigilance to improve the knowledge, attitude and the report of adverse drug reactions in healthcare professionals: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2024Pooled it
- Factors that influence patient and public adverse drug reaction reporting: a systematic review using the theoretical domains framework.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Pooled it
- Factors Associated with Underreporting of Adverse Drug Reactions by Health Care Professionals: A Systematic Review Update.Drug safety · 2023Pooled it
- How to promote adverse drug reaction reports using information systems - a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2016Pooled it
- Email for clinical communication between healthcare professionals.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Strategies to improve adverse drug reaction reporting: a critical and systematic review.Drug safety · 2013Pooled it
- Impact of information letters on the reporting rate of adverse drug reactions and the quality of the reports: a randomized controlled study.BMC clinical pharmacology · 2011Trial
- A narrative review of evidence to guide deprescribing among older adults.Journal of general and family medicine · 2021Review
- Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches.Revista de saude publica · 2016Article
- Underreporting in pharmacovigilance: an intervention for Italian GPs (Emilia-Romagna region).European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2013Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is one approach to increasing our knowledge on the risks of drugs in clinical practice. Under-reporting is a shortcoming of this system.
objectivesTo evaluate if repeated e-mails with attachments on ADR information can affect (1) the reporting of ADRs and (2) the quality of the ADR reports.
methodsAll 117 heads of primary health care units in the region of Västra Götaland in Sweden were randomly allocated (1:1) to an intervention group or a control group. The intervention consisted of e-mails with attachments sent out to each of the 117 heads in January, May and September 2007. These e-mails included (1) the heading "Every ADR report is important", (2) a current case report of an ADR and (3) instructions on how to report. The number of reports from each primary health care unit run by the same head was registered, as was the quality of the report. The quality was defined as high if the ADR was (1) serious, (2) unexpected or (3) related to the use of new drugs and not labeled as common in the summary of product characteristics. All other reports were regarded as low-quality reports.
resultsThe total number of reports increased from 89 in 2006 to 111 in 2007 (P = 0.037). No difference in the number of reports between intervention (n = 56) and control (n = 55) units could be detected. The proportion of high-quality reports before and after the intervention was 36 and 48%, respectively (intervention, P = 0.11) and 40 and 36%, respectively (control, P = 0.55).
conclusionsNo apparent effect of repeated ADR e-mails on the reporting of ADRs could be detected, although an increase in the reporting rate in general was noted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19127360What 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.