Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27581398›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2016

Patient Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions: An International Survey of National Competent Authorities' Views and Needs.

Cristiano Matos, Linda Härmark, Florence van Hunsel

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Parental reporting of adverse drug reactions in South Africa: An online survey.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. The value of direct patient reporting in pharmacovigilance.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Adverse Drug Reactions in Norway: A Systematic Review.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Current trends in pharmacovigilance: value and gaps of patient reporting.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2018
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Cristiano MatosDepartment of Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Seville, C/Profesor García-González 2, 41012, Seville, Spain. cristiano.r.matos@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-6279-1421
Linda HärmarkNetherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Pharmacovigilance in Education and Patient Reporting, Goudsbloemvallei 7, 5237 MH, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Florence van HunselNetherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Pharmacovigilance in Education and Patient Reporting, Goudsbloemvallei 7, 5237 MH, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb · NLUniversidad de Sevilla · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPatient reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to spontaneous reporting systems can make a valuable contribution to pharmacovigilance. However, the implementation and promotion of patient reporting systems (PRSs) differ worldwide.

objectiveThe objective of the study was to describe attitudes toward PRSs, and progress toward implementing such systems among national competent authorities participating in the World Health Organization Programme for International Drug Monitoring.

methodsA web-based questionnaire was constructed based on qualitative interviews, and distributed through SurveyMonkey

resultsA total of 143 valid questionnaires were received from 141 countries (79.2 %). A spontaneous reporting system for both healthcare professionals and patients was present in 58 countries (41.1 %). An official PRS to report ADRs directly was implemented in 44 countries (31.2 %) and in a pilot stage in five countries (3.5 %). Patients were not allowed to report in 34 countries (24.1 %). The reasons for not having an official PRS were mainly a lack of resources/budget (56.5 %) or a lack of information/education for patients (56.5 %). When analyzing the attitudes among the respondents toward a PRS, most acknowledge that the general public contributes to the detection or strength of drug safety signals (82.2 % agree or strongly agree) and with information that is not present in healthcare professional reports (80.7 % agree or strongly agree). For respondents, giving feedback to patients could be an incentive for patients to report more (80.8 % agree or strongly agree). To be able to further PRSs, guidelines on promoting a PRS efficiently to the general public (87.4 % agree or strongly agree), training courses/conferences (86.7 % agree or strongly agree), or a public list of Lareb's scientific publications (86.7 % agree or strongly agree) were the support measures most well accepted by the respondents.

conclusionsMost countries accept ADR reports from patients by an official reporting system designed for patients or through the existing system for healthcare professionals. The main reasons for not having a PRS is financial restraints and a lack of information/education of patients. Attitudes toward a PRS are positive, but some countries fear that they will not be able to handle an increase in reports.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHealth PersonnelHumansPatient ParticipationSurveys and QuestionnairesWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID27581398
OpenAlexW2515930288

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.