ReviewBioMed research international2018
Comparative Analysis of ADR on China's National Essential Medicines List (2015 Edition) and WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (19th Edition).
Review in BioMed research international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring the influencing factors of adverse drug reaction reporting among medical personnel: a COM-B model-based study.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the safety of the essential medicines recorded in China's list through the comparison of the list of essential medicines of China and the World Health Organization (WHO), as well as the analysis of the basic situation and characteristics of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) on the two essential medicines recorded in China's and WHO lists in order to provide a reference for the improvement of China's list.
methodsA retrospective descriptive study was conducted, based on the database in Jiangsu Province ADR Monitoring Center from 2013 to 2015. A total of 266869 cases reports were collected within this period, comparing the differences between the two essential medicines recorded in China's and WHO lists, considering number of ADRs, type of report, and modes of administration. Compare the differences between the two groups of drugs in the presence of new, severe, and new severe adverse events using chi square test.
resultsComparing the two essential medicines list, they have the same 117 species. When comparing ADRs in the two groups, most are antimicrobial, electrolytes, and acid-base balance drugs, regulate water, and are higher in China. In addition, with respect to the number of ADR types in the two groups, there is statistical significance (p<0.001) (total number is 68603 and 47515, new types are 12601 and 7262, the severe are 2714 and 7566, and the new severe are 820 and 716).
conclusionCompared to the WHO list of essential drugs, China's list is still to be improved.
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.