Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22360774›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2012

Pharmacovigilance.

I Ralph Edwards

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

1 author.

I Ralph EdwardsUppsala Monitoring Centre, Uppsala, Sweden. Ralph.Edwards@who-umc.org

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adverse drug reactions are the fifth most frequent cause of deaths in developed countries, effectively a global epidemic. However, progress in ameliorating the problem has been slow. Pharmacovigilance currently operates without clear objectives in relation to individual decisions, with no protocol (although risk management plans are a great step forward), with obscure materials and methods used for making decisions, with very limited reasoning and discussion, and little or no follow up and audit of the results. Problems include under-reporting, poor quality reports, underuse of the latest communications technology and suboptimal individual feedback to reporters. Assessment of causality is poor, impeding decision-making. After signal detection, more active measures to assess the risk to public health are needed. Other essential factors include precision about the ways in which data are prepared and transformed into databases, the recognition of secondary effects, which may be more obvious than the primary effect, but not so easy to link causally, and cognisance of all kinds of interactions. Areas that should be developed include pharmacoepidemiology, knowledge finding (through data mining), and communication and systems technology. The general way forward seems clear: a rigorous way of documenting all the steps, from getting reports of harms into regulatory databases to assessing their effects on public health, is essential and should be publicly reviewed for weaknesses. In turn, matters would be much improved by input on benefit/harm perceptions from patient groups, influencing decisions about what should be the true targets for regulatory and pharmacovigilance activities, avoiding second guessing by regulators.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualPharmacovigilanceAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsCommunicationData MiningDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansPublic Health

Identifiers

PMID22360774
PMCPMC3391531

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.