Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28417320›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2017

Patient Reporting in the EU: Analysis of EudraVigilance Data.

Marin Banovac, Gianmario Candore, Jim Slattery, Francois Houÿez, David Haerry, Georgy Genov, Peter Arlett

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Pharmacovigilance: the evolution of drug safety monitoring.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2024
    Article
  19. Self-reported side effects of COVID-19 vaccines among the public.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2024
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Marin BanovacEuropean Medicines Agency (EMA), 30 Churchill Place, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5EU, UK. marin.banovac@ema.europa.eu.ORCID 0000-0002-9984-2843
Gianmario CandoreEuropean Medicines Agency (EMA), 30 Churchill Place, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5EU, UK.
Jim SlatteryEuropean Medicines Agency (EMA), 30 Churchill Place, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5EU, UK.
Francois HouÿezEuropean Organisation for Rare Diseases (EURORDIS), Paris, France.
David HaerryEuropean Aids Treatment Group (EATG), Brussels, Belgium.
Georgy GenovEuropean Medicines Agency (EMA), 30 Churchill Place, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5EU, UK.
Peter ArlettEuropean Medicines Agency (EMA), 30 Churchill Place, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5EU, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNew pharmacovigilance legislation was adopted in the EU in 2010 and became operational in July 2012. The legislation placed an obligation on all national competent authorities (NCAs) and marketing authorisation holders (MAHs) to record and report cases of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) received from patients.

objectivesThis descriptive study aims to provide insight into patient reporting for the totality of the EU by querying the EudraVigilance (EV) database for the period of 3 years before the new pharmacovigilance legislation became operational and the 3 years after as well as comparing patient reports with those from healthcare professionals (HCPs) where feasible.

methodsWe queried the EV database for the following characteristics of patient and HCP reports: demographics (patient sex and age), seriousness, reported ADR terms, reported indications, number of ADRs per report, time to report an ADR, and most reported substances. Wherever feasible, direct comparisons between patient reports and HCP reports were performed using relative risks.

resultsThe EV database contained a total of 53,130 patient reports in the 3 years preceding the legislation operation period and 113,371 in the 3 years after. Member states contributing the most patient reports to the EV database were the Netherlands, the UK, Germany, France and Italy. The results for indications and substances show that patients were more likely than HCPs to report for genitourinary, hormonal and reproductive indications. Patients reported more in general disorders and administration site conditions Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) System Organ Class (SOC), whereas HCPs reported more Preferred Terms (PTs) belonging in the Investigations SOC. However, 13 of the 20 reactions most frequently reported by patients were also among the top 20 reactions reported by HCPs.

conclusionPatient reporting complemented reporting by HCPs. Patients were motivated to report ADRs, especially those that affected their quality of life. Sharing these results with NCAs and patient associations can inform training and awareness on patient reporting.

Indexed as

PharmacovigilanceAdolescentAdultAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAgedChildChild, PreschoolDatabases, FactualDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsEuropean UnionFemaleHumansInfantMaleMiddle AgedPatients

Identifiers

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.