ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2013
Postmarketing adverse drug reactions: A duty to report?
Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a genetic priority score to predict drug side effects using human genetic evidence.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Barriers to and facilitators of healthcare professionals in ADR reporting in a tertiary care hospital in India.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Descriptive analysis of the national drug adverse events (AEs) database in Lebanon.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2025Article
- Pharmacovigilance: reporting requirements throughout a product's lifecycle.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2022Review
- Molecular Docking: Shifting Paradigms in Drug Discovery.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- The role of drug profiles as similarity metrics: applications to repurposing, adverse effects detection and drug-drug interactions.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2017Article
- A decade of adverse drug events in Portuguese hospitals: space-time clustering and spatial variation in temporal trends.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2017Article
- Revisiting the reported signal of acute pancreatitis with rasburicase: an object lesson in pharmacovigilance.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2016Article
- The US Food and Drug Administration, neurologists, and drug development and regulation.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2015Article
- The value proposition of case reports: Novelty, pedagogy, anecdotal aggregation, humanity.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2014Article
- Postmarketing adverse drug reactions: A duty to report?Neurology. Clinical practice · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physicians play an important role in recognizing and reporting suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Physicians can report suspected ADRs directly to the FDA via its MedWatch program, by contacting the manufacturer of the drug, and by publishing case reports. While this takes time, physicians have an ethical obligation to participate in recognizing and reporting ADR.
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.