Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20701410›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2010

Adverse drug reaction reporting in the UK: a retrospective observational comparison of yellow card reports submitted by patients and healthcare professionals.

David J McLernon, Christine M Bond, Philip C Hannaford, Margaret C Watson, Amanda J Lee, Lorna Hazell, Anthony Avery, Yellow Card Collaboration

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Sex, Gender, and the Regulation of Prescription Drugs: Omissions and Opportunities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Pediatric acute asthma scoring systems: a systematic review and survey of UK practice.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Adverse Drug Reactions in Norway: A Systematic Review.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019
    Review
  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

8 authors.

David J McLernonMedical Statistics Team, Section of Population Health, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. d.mclernon@abdn.ac.uk
Christine M Bond
Philip C Hannaford
Margaret C Watson
Amanda J Lee
Lorna Hazell
Anthony Avery
Yellow Card Collaboration

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the UK, spontaneous reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) by healthcare professionals has been in operation since 1964 through the Yellow Card Scheme (YCS). From 2005, patients themselves have been able to submit Yellow Card reports.

objectiveTo compare patient characteristics, suspected drugs and suspected ADRs reported by patients with those reported by healthcare professionals using the YCS. DESIGN AND

settingRetrospective observational study in the UK.

methodsParticipants were patients reported to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), either by themselves, a representative or a healthcare professional, as having one or more suspected ADRs between October 2005 and September 2007. The main outcome measures were ADRs and time taken to report.

resultsIn total, 26 129 Yellow Card reports from patients and healthcare professionals were received from the MHRA for the 2-year study period (19.8% patient and 80.2% healthcare professional). More Yellow Card reports were made for female than male patients (p < 0.001). Patients reported a significantly higher number of suspected ADRs per report than healthcare professionals (median [interquartile range {IQR}] of 3 [2-5] vs 2 [1-3], respectively; p < 0.001). A higher proportion of patient reports (16.1%) contained more than one suspect drug than healthcare professional reports (9%; p < 0.001). Healthcare professional reports had a higher proportion of ADRs that caused hospitalization (18.8% vs 12.9%), were life threatening (11.1% vs 6.2%) or caused death (2.6% vs 0.7%) than patient reports (all p < 0.001). Patient reporters took a significantly longer time to report their reaction than healthcare professionals (median [IQR] of 104 [27-463] vs 28 [13-75] days respectively; p < 0.001). Direct comparisons of the seriousness of the ADRs were not possible because of important differences between patient and healthcare professional versions of the Yellow Cards.

conclusionsThis is the first substantial, published study in the UK to compare Yellow Card reports from patients and healthcare professionals. Whilst patients report more suspected ADRs to more suspect drugs than healthcare professionals, healthcare professionals tend to report more serious reactions that result in hospitalization, are life threatening or cause death. Further research is required to investigate the extent to which the extra information from patient reporters contributes to signal identification when assessing drug safety.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsAdultAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAgedFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatientsRetrospective StudiesSex FactorsTime FactorsUnited Kingdom

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.