ArticleRevista espanola de salud publica2020
[Knowledge and attitude about Pharmacovigilance practices of pharmacy professionals of community pharmacy and hospital pharmacy in Spain.]
Article in Revista espanola de salud publica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacists' Experiences on Adverse Drug Reactions in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Outcomes of Community Pharmacy Interventions on Patients with Medicines Under Additional Monitoring.Integrated pharmacy research & 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe justification of the study was to assess the degree of knowledge of Spanish pharmacists in the field of Pharmacovigilance, their degree of notification of adverse drug reactions and their need for training, establishing the differences between community pharmacy pharmacist and those of hospital pharmacy.
methodsA questionnaire with twelve questions on Pharmacovigilance was designed. The distribution and collection of the questionnaires were carried out via online in collaboration with the Official Colleges of Pharmacists and the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy during the period from November 2018 to June 2019. The target population were the pharmacists registered or belonging to the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy. The results were processed using a descriptive and analytical analysis. The qualitative variables were presented with their frequency distribution and the quantitative with their mean and standard deviation.
results99% of hospital pharmacists said they had evidence of suspected adverse reactions and 96.9% of them ever reported. 73.5% of community pharmacists stated that they had knowledge of suspected adverse reactions but only 48.7% confirmed that they notified them. In general, the pharmacists surveyed agreed on the importance of Pharmacovigilance and believed that the quality of treatments could be improved and the Spanish health system would be saved if Pharmacovigilance was applied more.
conclusionsOur results indicated that hospital pharmacists report much more adverse drug reactions than community pharmacist does. It also hospital pharmacists who know best the obligations they have with Pharmacovigilance. The surveyed pharmacists thought that the development of actions in Pharmacovigilance would increase the adherence of pharmaceutical professionals to the notification and would imply improvements in the quality of treatments, the rational use of medications and patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32669534PMC11582963What 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.