ArticlePharmacy practice2010
Pattern and quality of scientific communications on drug safety produced by a regional pharmacovigilance center in Nepal.
Article in Pharmacy practice, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bibliometric analysis of adverse drug reactions and pharmacovigilance research activities in Nepal.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledAnalyzing the pattern and quality of scientific communications on pharmacovigilance can help the regional centers in Nepal and other developing countries to develop approaches for communicating effectively medicine safety issues. This kind of research is lacking in developing countries.
objectivesTo analyze the pattern and quality of scientific communications on drug safety produced by the regional pharmacovigilance center at western Nepal. METHODOLOGY: Various conference abstracts and journal publications produced by the center during its initial four years of establishment (14th September 2004 till 13th September 2008) were identified. These communications were categorized in to case reports, review articles, conference presentations, short communications, newsletter and bulletin articles, original research and case series. In addition, the quality of the case reports were evaluated as per International Society of Pharmacovigilance/International Society of Pharmacoepidemiology (ISoP/ISPE) guidelines on the requirements for submitting case reports on adverse event reports in biomedical journals.
resultsDuring the study period, 53 scientific communications were produced by the staff of the regional pharmacovigilance center in relation with drug safety. Among these, 18 (34%) were related to case reports and letters. The median (interquartile range) age of the patients described in the case reports was 46.5 (21.7-51.2) years. Among the total 18 ADRs, four were fixed drug eruptions, followed by contact dermatitis (n=2). Majority of the published case reports were related to skin (n=13; 72.2%). Antimicrobials were responsible for 27.8% (n=5) of the case reports. Among the 18 case reports published by the pharmacovigilance center, a majority followed the ISoP/ISPE guidelines. Few parameters like physical examination of the patient experiencing ADR, patient disposition, dosage and administration of the suspected drugs, and drug-reaction interface were missing in few of the cases.
conclusionA high percentage of the scientific communications were 'case reports'. A high proportion of the case reports produced by the center were of international standards. There were lacunae in 'patient disposition' in few of the reports.
Indexed as
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.