ArticleDrug safety2010
Adverse drug reaction reporting in the UK: a retrospective observational comparison of yellow card reports submitted by patients and healthcare professionals.
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.
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
44 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The value of patient reporting to the pharmacovigilance system: a systematic review.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017Pooled it
- Patient versus healthcare professional spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting: a systematic review.Drug safety · 2012Pooled it
- Evaluation of an interactive program for preventing adverse drug events in primary care: study protocol of the InPAct cluster randomised stepped wedge trial.Implementation science : IS · 2013Trial
- Completeness of spontaneously reported adverse drug reactions in 4 databases.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Understanding Underreporting of Adverse Drug Reactions in the Philippines: A Mixed Methods Study.Drugs - real world outcomes · 2025Article
- Promoting Patient Engagement in Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting: A Novel Approach Utilizing Set Induction-Based Skill Questionnaires.Current drug safety · 2025Article
- Self-reporting of adverse drug reactions of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in community pharmacies.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2025Article
- Under-reporting of gastrointestinal bleeding associated with anticoagulant use using the UK Yellow Card Scheme.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Article
- Use of Real-World Data in Population Science to Improve the Prevention and Care of Diabetes-Related Outcomes.Diabetes care · 2023Review
- Sex, Gender, and the Regulation of Prescription Drugs: Omissions and Opportunities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- A cross-sectional study: comparison of public perceptions of adverse drug reaction reporting and monitoring in eastern and western China.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- A Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis of Adverse Drug Reactions: A Scoping Review of Pharmacovigilance Databases.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Exploring healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitude, and practices towards pharmacovigilance: a cross-sectional survey.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2021Article
- Adverse Drug Reaction Reports Regarding Abnormal Behavior After Oseltamivir Use in Children as Reported by Consumers or Healthcare Professionals.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Article
- The Unintended Consequences of Adverse Event Information on Medicines' Risks and Label Content.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2020Article
- Pediatric acute asthma scoring systems: a systematic review and survey of UK practice.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2020Article
- Pharmacovigilance Reports Received from Children and Young People, and Development of Information to Aid Future Reporting from this Age Group.Paediatric drugs · 2020Article
- Reported adverse drug reactions in women and men: Aggregated evidence from globally collected individual case reports during half a century.EClinicalMedicine · 2019Article
- Adverse Drug Reactions in Norway: A Systematic Review.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Study of serious adverse drug reactions using FDA-approved drug labeling and MedDRA.BMC bioinformatics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
20701410What 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.