ArticlePaediatric drugs2020
Analysis of Reporting Adverse Drug Reactions in Paediatric Patients in a University Hospital in the Netherlands.
Article in Paediatric drugs, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a systematic review comparing clinical settings and pharmacovigilance systems.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Uncovering the Hidden Hurdles: Exploring Challenges in Pediatric Pharmacovigilance in the Netherlands.Drug safety · 2026Article
- Adverse drug reactions in paediatric surgery: prospective study on frequency and risk related factors.BMC pediatrics · 2024Observational
- Disponibilité de l'information médicale requise pour la déclaration d'une réaction indésirable médicamenteuse à Santé Canada: une étude exploratoire.The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy · 2024Article
- Antifungal Drug-Drug Interactions with Commonly Used Pharmaceutics in European Pediatric Patients with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Adverse Drug Reactions in Children: Comparison of Reports Collected in a Pharmacovigilance Project Versus Spontaneously Collected ADR Reports.Paediatric drugs · 2023Article
- c4c: Paediatric pharmacovigilance: Methodological considerations in research and development of medicines for children - A c4c expert group white paper.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Review
- Quality of Active versus Spontaneous Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions in Pediatric Patients: Relevance for Pharmacovigilance and Knowledge in Pediatric Medical Care.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Adverse Drug Reactions in Pediatric Oncohematology: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Review
- Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reactions in Paediatric Patients: A Retrospective Study in Turkish Hospital.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Effects of the number of drugs used on the prevalence of adverse drug reactions in children.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe risk to develop adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is high for paediatric patients. This is, amongst other reasons, due to the inevitable use of off-label and unlicensed medicines. Moreover, there is limited knowledge on ADRs in children. Thus, adequate recognition may be challenging. The lack of dedicated studies and the voluntary nature of pharmacovigilance systems used to gain insight into the characteristics of ADRs contribute to this problem. The goal of this study is to identify whether ADRs in paediatric patients are adequately documented by the medical team and whether they are subsequently reported to the national pharmacovigilance system.
methodsAll patients admitted to the paediatric medium care of the Radboudumc Amalia Children's hospital during 1 month, and using one or more drugs, were included. Two researchers analysed retrospectively and independently the number of possible ADRs in the medical records. The ADRs were listed per paediatric subspecialty, to evaluate any differences in documentation and reporting of the ADRs. Subsequently, the causality, severity, and seriousness of the ADRs were assessed. The ADRs were categorised by system organ class and drug class. The national pharmacovigilance centre was consulted to check if there were any reports coming from our hospital and to collect the total number of reports.
resultsThe medical records of 301 patients were analysed, 81 patients were suffering from one or more ADRs. In total 132 suspected ADRs were found, divided among 19 different paediatric subspecialties. Numbers were too small to investigate the differences in ADR documentation. Of these found ADRs, 55% were not explicitly noted as such in the medical records by the treating physician. None of the ADRs were reported to the national pharmacovigilance centre. Most ADRs scored 'possible' in the causality assessment, were mild or moderate, and a small number were serious. The ADRs occurred in 25 different organ systems. In total 25 different drug classes were involved.
conclusionsThe results of the present study show that a large number of ADRs are not registered in the medical records and are not reported to the national pharmacovigilance system. Furthermore, it is shown that the number of ADRs occurring at our centre is much higher than the number reported to the national pharmacovigilance centre. Only an average of 513 ADRs in paediatric patients are reported per year nationwide, suggesting that there is extensive underreporting.
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.