ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2021
The cooccurrence of heightened media attention and adverse drug reaction reports for hormonal contraception in the United Kingdom between 2014 and 2017.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Analysis of Drugs Frequently Suspected of Causing Adverse Drug Reactions Reported via the Spontaneous Reporting System Versus in a Prospective Multicentre Cohort Study in Hospital Emergency Departments.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Analysis of spontaneous reports of suspected adverse reactions after vaccination against COVID-19 in Slovakia.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Spontaneous Reporting to Regulatory Authorities of Suspected Adverse Drug Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines Over Time: The Effect of Publicity.Drug safety · 2022Article
- The cooccurrence of heightened media attention and adverse drug reaction reports for hormonal contraception in the United Kingdom between 2014 and 2017.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to examine the cooccurrence of heightened media attention after the publication of a paper by Skovlund et al in September 2016 on the link between hormonal contraception and depression or mood on adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports in the UK.
methodsA quantitative analysis of relevant newspaper articles published between January 2014 and December 2017 was performed, as well as a content analysis. ADR reports were collected from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency website and via a Freedom of Information request. A quantitative analysis was performed on ADR reports of hormonal contraceptives for all ADRs and for depressed mood disorders and disturbances.
resultsThe publication of the Skovlund et al paper did not lead to a peak in relevant newspaper articles, but there was a change in the content of the newspaper articles, which focussed more on the link between hormonal contraceptives and depression or mood. There was an overall increase in ADR reports by women relating to hormonal contraceptives between 2016 and 2017, and for combined contraceptives this was due to an increase in ADR reports of depressed mood disorders and disturbances.
conclusionsThe content of media attention appears to affect ADR reporting by women for combined contraceptives. In general, patients report the majority of depressed mood disorders and disturbances ADRs as opposed to health professionals, who report other ADRs. Care providers can anticipate the effect of heightened media attention and help patients when they experience these ADRs.
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.