Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27868226›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2017

Factors affecting patient reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review.

Rania Al Dweik, Dawn Stacey, Dafna Kohen, Sanni Yaya

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
10.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 134 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting: potential facilitators perceived by community pharmacists in Egypt - a cross-sectional study.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Rania Al DweikDepartment of Population Health, Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Dawn StaceyOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program, School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Dafna KohenSchool of Epidemiology, Public Health, and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Sanni YayaSchool of International Development and Global Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Global Affairs Canada · CAInstitute of Population and Public Health · CAOttawa Hospital · CAOttawa Public Health · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim of the present study was to determine the barriers and motives influencing consumer reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs).

methodsA systematic review, guided by the Cochrane Handbook, was conducted. Electronic searches included MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1964 to December 2014. Eligible studies addressed patients' perceptions and factors influencing ADR reporting. Studies about healthcare professional (HCP) reporting of ADRs were excluded. Studies were appraised for quality, and results were analysed descriptively.

resultsOf 1435 citations identified, 21 studies were eligible. Studies were primarily conducted in the UK, the Netherlands and Australia. The identified barriers to patient reporting of ADRs (n = 15 studies) included poor awareness, confusion about who should report the ADR, difficulties with reporting procedures, lack of feedback on submitted reports, mailing costs, ADRs resolved and prior negative reporting experiences. The identified motives for patients reporting ADRs (n = 10 studies) were: preventing others from having similar ADRs, wanting personal feedback, improving medication safety, informing regulatory agencies, improving HCP practices, responding to HCPs not reporting their ADRs and having been asked to report ADRs by HCPs.

conclusionsMost patients were not aware of reporting systems and others were confused about reporting. Patients were mainly motivated to make their ADRs known to prevent similar suffering in other patients. By increasing patient familiarity and providing clear reporting processes, reporting systems could better achieve patient reporting of ADRs.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsSelf ReportFeedbackHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMotivationPatientsadverse drug reaction reporting systemadverse drug reactionsbarriersmotivespatientpharmacovigilance

Identifiers

PMID27868226
PMCPMC5346870
OpenAlexW2560571493

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.