Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29946545›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2018

Retrospective Study of Reported Adverse Events Due to Complementary Health Products in Singapore From 2010 to 2016.

Yimin Xu, Dhavalkumar N Patel, Suet-Leng P Ng, Siew-Har Tan, Dorothy Toh, Jalene Poh, Adena Theen Lim, Cheng-Leng Chan, Min-Yong Low, Hwee-Ling Koh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yimin XuDepartment of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Dhavalkumar N PatelDepartment of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Suet-Leng P NgVigilance, Compliance and Enforcement Cluster, Health Products Regulation Group, Health Sciences Authority, Singapore, Singapore.
Siew-Har TanVigilance, Compliance and Enforcement Cluster, Health Products Regulation Group, Health Sciences Authority, Singapore, Singapore.
Dorothy TohVigilance, Compliance and Enforcement Cluster, Health Products Regulation Group, Health Sciences Authority, Singapore, Singapore.
Jalene PohVigilance, Compliance and Enforcement Cluster, Health Products Regulation Group, Health Sciences Authority, Singapore, Singapore.
Adena Theen LimVigilance, Compliance and Enforcement Cluster, Health Products Regulation Group, Health Sciences Authority, Singapore, Singapore.
Cheng-Leng ChanDepartment of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Min-Yong LowApplied Sciences Group, Pharmaceutical Division, Health Sciences Authority, Singapore, Singapore.
Hwee-Ling KohDepartment of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Health Sciences Authority · SGNational University of Singapore · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study is to collate and analyse adverse event reports associated with the use of complementary health products (CHP) submitted to the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) of Singapore for the period 2010-2016 to identify various trends and signals for pharmacovigilance purposes. A total of 147,215 adverse event reports suspected to be associated with pharmaceutical products and CHP were received by HSA between 2010 and 2016. Of these, 143,191 (97.3%) were associated with chemical drugs, 1,807 (1.2%) with vaccines, 1,324 (0.9%) with biological drugs (biologics), and 893 (0.6%) with CHP. The number of adverse event reports associated with Chinese Proprietary Medicine, other complementary medicine and health supplements are presented. Eight hundred and ninety three adverse event reports associated with CHP in the 7-year period have been successfully collated and analyzed. In agreement with other studies, adverse events related to the "skin and appendages disorders" were the most commonly reported. Most of the cases involved dermal allergies (e.g., rashes) associated with the use of glucosamine products and most of the adulterated products were associated with the illegal addition of undeclared drugs for pain relief. Dexamethasone, chlorpheniramine, and piroxicam were the most common adulterants detected. Reporting suspected adverse events is strongly encouraged even if the causality is not confirmed because any signs of clustering will allow rapid regulatory actions to be taken. The findings from this study help to create greater awareness on the health risks, albeit low, when consuming CHP and dispelling the common misconception that "natural" means "safe." In particular, healthcare professionals and the general public should be aware of potential adulteration of CHP. The analysis of spontaneously reported adverse events is an important surveillance system in monitoring the safety of CHP and helps in the understanding of the risk associated with the use of such products. Greater collaboration and communication between healthcare professionals, regulators, patients, manufacturers, researchers, and the general public are important to ensure the quality and safety of CHP.

Indexed as

adulterantsadverse eventscomplementary health productsglucosaminepharmacovigilance

Identifiers

PMID29946545
PMCPMC6006675
OpenAlexW2807958134

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.