Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26147850›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2015

Social media and pharmacovigilance: A review of the opportunities and challenges.

Richard Sloane, Orod Osanlou, David Lewis, Danushka Bollegala, Simon Maskell, Munir Pirmohamed

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Twitter as a Tool for Health Research: A Systematic Review.American journal of public health · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Observational
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

6 authors.

Richard SloaneDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Electronics, University of Liverpool, L69 3GJ, UK.
Orod OsanlouDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK.
David LewisDrug Safety & Epidemiology, Novartis Pharma AG, Postfach, CH-4002, Basel, Switzerland.
Danushka BollegalaDepartment of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK.
Simon MaskellDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Electronics, University of Liverpool, L69 3GJ, UK.
Munir PirmohamedDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/L006758/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adverse drug reactions come at a considerable cost on society. Social media are a potentially invaluable reservoir of information for pharmacovigilance, yet their true value remains to be fully understood. In order to realize the benefits social media holds, a number of technical, regulatory and ethical challenges remain to be addressed. We outline these key challenges identifying relevant current research and present possible solutions.

Indexed as

PharmacovigilanceSocial MediaData MiningDrug IndustryDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansadverse drug reactionspharmacovigilancesignal generationsocial media

Identifiers

PMID26147850
PMCPMC4594734

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.