ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2010
Motives for reporting adverse drug reactions by patient-reporters in the Netherlands.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 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
49 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- 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 affecting patient reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017Pooled it
- The value of patient reporting to the pharmacovigilance system: a systematic review.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017Pooled it
- 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
- Causal Inference Tools for Pharmacovigilance: Using Causal Graphs to Identify and Address Biases in Disproportionality Analysis.Drug safety · 2026Article
- Completeness of spontaneously reported adverse drug reactions in 4 databases.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Pregnant Women and Vaccine Safety in Uganda: Knowledge, Barriers, and Opportunities for Engagement.Vaccines · 2025Article
- Consumer views on the use of digital tools for reporting adverse drug reactions: a cross-sectional study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Consumers' knowledge and experiences of adverse drug reaction reporting in Australia: a national survey.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2024Article
- Patients' Identification, Management and Prevention of Adverse Drug Reactions: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Patients with Severe Adverse Drug Reactions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Accuracy in patient-reported adverse drug reactions and their recognition: a mixed-methods study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
- Sociodemographic Characteristics of Adverse Event Reporting in the USA: An Ecologic Study.Drug safety · 2024Article
- Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting among the General Public in Lithuania: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Thai stakeholders' awareness and perceptions of the patient adverse event reporting system for herbal medicines: a qualitative study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Article
- Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: Surveillance system evaluation in Ho Municipality of the Volta Region, Ghana.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- Covid-19 vaccine apps should deliver more to patients.The Lancet. Digital health · 2021Article
- Patients' experiences on adverse drug reactions reporting: a qualitative study.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to quantify the reasons and opinions of patients who reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in the Netherlands to a pharmacovigilance centre.
methodA web-based questionnaire was sent to 1370 patients who had previously reported an ADR to a pharmacovigilance centre. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics, χ(2) tests and Spearman's correlation coefficients.
resultsThe response rate was 76.5% after one reminder. The main reasons for patients to report ADRs were to share their experiences (89% agreed or strongly agreed), the severity of the reaction (86% agreed or strongly agreed to the statement), worries about their own situation (63.2% agreed or strongly agreed) and the fact the ADR was not mentioned in the patient information leaflet (57.6% agreed or strongly agreed). Of the patient-responders, 93.8% shared the opinion that reporting an ADR can prevent harm to other people, 97.9% believed that reporting contributes to research and knowledge, 90.7% stated that they felt responsible for reporting an ADR and 92.5% stated that they will report a possible ADR once again in the future.
conclusionThe main motives for patients to report their ADRs to a pharmacovigilance centre were the severity of the ADR and their need to share experiences. The high level of response to the questionnaire shows that patients are involved when it comes to ADRs and that they are also willing to share their motivations for and opinions about the reporting of ADRs with a pharmacovigilance centre.
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.