Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30566442›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2018

Antiretroviral adverse drug reactions pharmacovigilance in Harare City, Zimbabwe, 2017.

Hamufare Mugauri, Mufuta Tshimanga, Owen Mugurungi, Tsitsi Juru, Notion Gombe, Gerald Shambira

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact, top 84% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hamufare MugauriDepartment of Community Medicine, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.ORCID 0000-0003-4874-6381
Mufuta TshimangaDepartment of Community Medicine, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Owen MugurungiMinistry of Health and Child Care, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Tsitsi JuruDepartment of Community Medicine, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.ORCID 0000-0002-3570-2331
Notion GombeDepartment of Community Medicine, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Gerald ShambiraDepartment of Community Medicine, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.
University of Zimbabwe · ZWMinistry of Health and Child Welfare · ZW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionKey to pharmacovigilance is spontaneously reporting all Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) during post-market surveillance. This facilitates the identification and evaluation of previously unreported ADR's, acknowledging the trade-off between benefits and potential harm of medications. Only 41% Antiretroviral (ARV) ADR's documented in Harare city clinical records for January to December 2016 were reported to Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe (MCAZ). We investigated reasons contributing to underreporting of ARV ADR's in Harare city.

methodsA descriptive cross-sectional study and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guided surveillance evaluation was conducted. Two hospitals were purposively included. Seventeen health facilities and 52 health workers were randomly selected. Interviewer-administered questionnaires, key informant interviews and WHO pharmacovigilance checklists were used to collect data. Likert scales were applied to draw inferences and Epi info 7 used to generate frequencies and proportions.

resultsOf the 52 participants, 32 (61.5%) distinguished the ARV ADR defining criteria. Twenty-nine (55.8%) knew system's purpose whilst 28 (53.8%) knew the reporting process. Knowledge scored average on the 5-point-Likert scale. Thirty-eight (73.1%) participants identified ARV ADR's following client complaints and nine (1.3%) enquired clients' medication response. Forty-six (88.5%) cited non-feedback from MCAZ for underreporting. Inadequate ARV ADR identification skills were cited by 21 (40.4%) participants. Reporting forms were available in five (26.3%) facilities and reports were generated from hospitals only. Forty-two (90.6%) clinicians made therapeutic decisions from ARV ADR's. Averaged usefulness score was 4, on the 5-point-Likert scale. All 642 generated signals were committed to Vigiflow by MCAZ, reflecting a case detection rate of 4/ 100 000. Data quality was 0.75-1.0 (WHO) and all reports were causally assessed.

conclusionThe pharmacovigilance system was useful, simple, and acceptable despite being unstable, not representative and not sensitive. It was threatened by suboptimal health worker knowledge, weak detection strategies and referral policy preventing ARV ADR identification by person place and time. Revisiting local policy, advocacy, communication and health worker orientation might improve pharmacovigilance performance in Harare city.

Indexed as

Anti-Retroviral AgentsHealth PersonnelPharmacovigilanceSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesZimbabweAnti-Retroviral Agents

Identifiers

PMID30566442
PMCPMC6300272
OpenAlexW2952831392

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.