ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2018
Reporting adverse drug reactions: contribution, knowledge and perception of German pharmacy professionals.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Empowering Patient Safety: Assessment of Adverse Drug Reaction Knowledge and Practice Among Pharmacy Professionals.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A National Survey of Community Pharmacists' Viewpoints About Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in Saudi Arabia.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Analysis of spontaneous reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions for non-analgesic over-the-counter drugs from 2008 to 2017.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2019Article
- Overview of this issue: pharmacovigilance, what is new?International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The detection, assessment and prevention of adverse drug reactions along the product's life cycle is known as pharmacovigilance. German pharmacists are obliged by law to conduct pharmacovigilance measures, a specific training is not required. Objectives To assess the knowledge, contribution and perception of German pharmacy professionals regarding pharmacovigilance activities, in order to identify their needs to report better on the issue. Setting A semi-quantitative survey among German pharmacy professionals was conducted in November 2017. Method A questionnaire with 20 questions was developed and distributed to pharmacy professionals in four different German regions. Main outcome measures To assess the knowledge the number of right answered questions were examined; for perception a six-point-Likert was used and for contribution, yes or no questions. Results The participation ratio was 64.5% (n = 127). Nearly half of the participants (47.2%, n = 60) stated that they had already reported adverse drug reactions. Regarding the knowledge questions, there was neither a statistically significant difference between the correct answers of pharmacists and pharmacy technical assistents (p = 0.7209), nor between the different regions (p > 0.5054). For better reporting, the participants recommended better training, shorter forms to fill in and/or a contact person to call. Conclusion For the successful integration of pharmacovigilance reporting in daily practice, we suggest the following: (1) A structured, mandatory training of the pharmacy team. (2) The preparation of a standard operating procedure for the pharmacy or its integration into the pharmacy software.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.