Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30416347›Full record

ArticleSaudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society2018

Knowledge, attitudes & practices of healthcare professionals in hospitals towards the reporting of adverse drug reactions in Saudi Arabia: A multi-centre cross sectional study.

Thamir M AlShammari, Mohammed J Almoslem

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Knowledge, attitude and practice of hospital pharmacists towards pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction reporting in Najran, Saudi Arabia.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Patterns of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in Saudi Arabia.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance in Saudi Arabia: Opportunities for Real-time Assessment.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2021
    Article
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

2 authors.

Thamir M AlShammariDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, University of Hail, Hail, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed J AlmoslemDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, University of Hail, Hail, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAdverse drug reactions

methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted between January and February of 2013 in nine tertiary care hospitals (governmental and private) that provide highly specialized medical services in Riyadh, Qassim, and the Eastern region of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A validated questionnaire was used to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of HCPs regarding the ADR reporting system. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.2.

resultsIn total, 480 questionnaires were distributed, and the response rate was 70% (n = 336). Only 33% of the participants were aware of the National Pharmacovigilance Centre (NPC). Of those HCPs who were familiar with the NPC and their responsibility to report ADRs, most (50%) were pharmacists, followed by physicians (24%) and nurses (16%), and these differences were statistically significant (p < 0.01). Twenty-seven percent of the participants were involved in reporting ADRs; among these HCPs, 62% were pharmacists, 26% were nurses, and 6% were physicians. Most participants (95%) favoured reporting ADRs caused by antibiotics and new/old drugs. The prominent factors discouraging ADR reporting included fear that the report might be incorrect (46%) and lack of time (44%).

conclusionsA significant lack of knowledge, positive attitudes, and practices regarding ADRs and reporting was observed in hospital HCPs. This finding represents an international concern, and urgent action is needed to promote drug safety and pharmacovigilance in this region.

Indexed as

Adverse drug reactionCross-sectionalHealthcare professionalsPharmacovigilance

Identifiers

PMID30416347
PMCPMC6218328

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.