Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28933055›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2018

Safety Concerns Reported by Patients Identified in a Collaborative Signal Detection Workshop using VigiBase: Results and Reflections from Lareb and Uppsala Monitoring Centre.

Sarah Watson, Rebecca E Chandler, Henric Taavola, Linda Härmark, Birgitta Grundmark, Alem Zekarias, Kristina Star, Florence van Hunsel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The Importance of Direct Patient Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions in the Safety Monitoring Process.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

8 authors.

Sarah WatsonUppsala Monitoring Centre, Uppsala, Sweden. sarah.watson@who-umc.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9660-5968
Rebecca E ChandlerUppsala Monitoring Centre, Uppsala, Sweden.
Henric TaavolaUppsala Monitoring Centre, Uppsala, Sweden.
Linda HärmarkNetherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Birgitta GrundmarkUppsala Monitoring Centre, Uppsala, Sweden.
Alem ZekariasUppsala Monitoring Centre, Uppsala, Sweden.
Kristina StarUppsala Monitoring Centre, Uppsala, Sweden.
Florence van HunselNetherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPatient reporting in pharmacovigilance is important and contributes to signal detection. However, descriptions of methodologies for using patient reports in signal detection are scarce, and published experiences of how patient reports are used in pharmacovigilance are limited to a few individual countries.

objectiveOur objective was to explore the contribution of patient reports to global signal detection in VigiBase.

methodsData were retrieved from VigiBase in September 2016. Drug-event-combination series were restricted to those with >50% patient reports, defined as reporter type "Consumer/non-health professional" per E2B reporting standard. vigiRank was applied to patient reports to prioritize combinations for assessment. Product information for healthcare professionals (HCPs) as well as patient information leaflets (PILs) were used as reference for information on adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Staff from the Uppsala Monitoring Centre and the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb categorized the combinations. Potential signals proceeded to a more in-depth clinical review to determine whether the safety concern should be communicated as a "signal."

resultsOf the 212 combinations assessed, 20 (9%) resulted in eight signals communicated within the World Health Organization (WHO) programme for international drug monitoring. Review of PILs revealed insufficient ADR descriptions for patients and examples of poor consistency with product information for HCPs. Patient narratives provided details regarding the experience and impact of ADRs and evidence that patients make causality and personal risk assessments.

conclusionsSafety concerns described in patient reports can be identified in a global database including previously unknown ADRs as well as new aspects of known ADRs. Patient reports provide unique information valuable in signal assessment and should be included in signal detection. Novel approaches to highlighting patient reports in statistical signal detection can further improve the contribution of patient reports to pharmacovigilance.

Indexed as

PharmacovigilanceAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsDatabases, FactualDrug MonitoringDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHealth PersonnelHumansNetherlandsWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID28933055
PMCPMC5808049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.