Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23640659›Full record

SynthesisDrug safety2013

Strategies to improve adverse drug reaction reporting: a critical and systematic review.

Cristian Gonzalez-Gonzalez, Elena Lopez-Gonzalez, Maria T Herdeiro, Adolfo Figueiras

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Drug safety, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Improving adverse drug event reporting by healthcare professionals.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Understanding Primary Care Physician Vaccination Behaviour: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

4 authors.

Cristian Gonzalez-GonzalezDto. de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Facultad de Medicina, University of Santiago de Compostela, c/ San Francisco s/n, 15786 Santiago de Compostela-A Coruña, Spain.
Elena Lopez-Gonzalez
Maria T Herdeiro
Adolfo Figueiras

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderreporting is the major limitation of a voluntary adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting system. Many studies have assessed the effectiveness of different interventions designed to reduce underreporting.

objectiveWe aimed to conduct a critical review of papers that assessed the effectiveness of different strategies to increase ADR reporting, regardless of the health professionals or patients included. DATA SOURCES: Scientific papers were selected after a search of the MEDLINE-PubMed and EMBASE scientific databases up to 7 December 2010. STUDY SELECTION: We included papers in English, French or Spanish that analysed an intervention aimed at increasing the number of reported ADRs, and quantify the results of the intervention in terms of number of reports. DATA EXTRACTION: The abstracts retrieved in both computerized searches were reviewed independently by two of the authors. Initially selected papers were thoroughly read to evaluate if they met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data in finally selected papers were independently extracted by both authors and set in pre-designed tables. A third author took the final decision in case of disagreement. For each study, we analysed study design, type of intervention, assessment period, and results of the intervention.

resultsOf the 4,221 papers located that fulfilled the search criteria, 43 met the selection criteria. With the exception of one study, the interventions assessed were deemed to be effective. The vast majority of papers displayed methodological and formal limitations that lowered the grade of evidence. Multiple interventions seem to have had more impact than did single interventions. There were very few cases in which interventions were designed on the basis of inappropriate attitudes and mistaken beliefs about ADRs.

conclusionsIn general, there is a need for studies of better methodological quality in this topic, so that more evidence of the effectiveness of the respective strategies can be collected for the purpose of improving ADR reporting by health professionals. It is probable that multiple interventions cause greater increases in the ADR reporting rates than single.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsData Interpretation, StatisticalHumans

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.