ArticleDrug safety2020
Drug Safety Issues Covered by Lay Media: A Cohort Study of Direct Healthcare Provider Communications Sent between 2001 and 2015 in The Netherlands.
Article in Drug safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mixed Impact of Direct Healthcare Professional Communications When Considering Proximal Outcomes and the Targeted Population: A Systematic Review.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2025Pooled it
- Pharmacovigilance in the digital age: gaining insight from social media data.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2025Review
- Handling of New Drug Safety Information in the Dutch Hospital Setting: A Mixed Methods Approach.Drug safety · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSome drug safety issues communicated through direct healthcare professional communications (DHPCs) receive substantial media coverage, while others do not.
objectivesThe objective of this study was to assess the extent of coverage of drug safety issues that have been communicated through DHPCs in newspapers and social media. A secondary aim was to explore which determinants may be associated with media coverage.
methodsNewspaper articles covering drug safety issues communicated through 387 DHPCs published between 2001 and 2015 were retrieved from LexisNexis Academic™. Social media postings were retrieved from Coosto™ for drugs included in 220 DHPCs published between 2010 and 2015. Coverage of DHPCs by newspapers and social media was assessed during the 2-month and 14-day time periods following issuance of the DHPC, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess potential DHPC- and drug-related determinants of media coverage.
results41 (10.6%) DHPC safety issues were covered in newspaper articles. Newspaper coverage was associated with drugs without a specialist indication [adjusted odds ratio 5.32; 95% confidence interval (2.64-10.73)]. Negative associations were seen for time since market approval [3-5 years 0.30; (0.11-0.82), 6-11 years 0.18; (0.06-0.58)] and year of the DHPC [0.88; (0.81-0.96)]. In the social media, 180 (81.8%) drugs mentioned in 220 DHPCs were covered. Social media coverage was associated with drugs without a specialist indication [6.92; (1.56-30.64)], and for DHPCs communicating clinical safety issues [5.46; (2.03-14.66)].
conclusionsNewspapers covered a small proportion of DHPC safety issues only. Most drugs mentioned in DHPCs were covered in social media. Coverage in both media were higher for drugs without a specialist indication.
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.