Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35010673›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

The Importance of Direct Patient Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions in the Safety Monitoring Process.

Kamila Sienkiewicz, Monika Burzyńska, Izabela Rydlewska-Liszkowska, Jacek Sienkiewicz, Ewelina Gaszyńska

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Kamila SienkiewiczDepartment of Management and Logistics in Healthcare, Medical University of Lodz, Lindleya Street 6, 90-131 Lodz, Poland.
Monika BurzyńskaDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Medical University of Lodz, Żeligowskiego Street 7/9, 90-752 Lodz, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-9875-7383
Izabela Rydlewska-LiszkowskaDepartment of Management and Logistics in Healthcare, Medical University of Lodz, Lindleya Street 6, 90-131 Lodz, Poland.
Jacek SienkiewiczDepartment of Management and Logistics in Healthcare, Medical University of Lodz, Lindleya Street 6, 90-131 Lodz, Poland.
Ewelina GaszyńskaDepartment of Nutrition and Epidemiology, Medical University of Lodz, Żeligowskiego Street 7/9, 90-752 Lodz, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

All medicinal products authorized in the European Union are subjects of constant drug-safety monitoring processes. It is organized in a pharmacovigilance system that is designed to protect human health and life by the detection, analysis and prevention of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and other drug-related problems. The main role of the aforementioned system is to collect and analyze adverse drug reaction reports. Legislation introduced several years ago allowed patients, their legal representatives and caregivers to report adverse drug reactions, which caused them to be an additional source of safety data. This paper presents the analysis of EudraVigilance data related to adverse drug reactions provided by patients, their representatives, as well as those obtained from healthcare professionals related to medicines which belong to M01A anti-inflammatory and antirheumatic products, a non-steroid group. The objective of the study was to identify the changes in the number and structure of adverse reaction reporting after the introduction of pharmacovigilance (PV) obligations in EU. A review of scientific literature was also conducted to assess the differences in adverse reactions reported by patients or their representatives and by healthcare professionals. We also identified other factors which, according to literature review, influenced the number of adverse reaction reports provided by patients. Analysis of data collected from the EudraVigilance showed that from 2011 to 2013 the number of reports made by patients and their caregivers increased by approx. 24 percentage points, and then, from 2014, it constituted around 30% of the total of reported reactions every year, so patient reporting is an important part of pharmacovigilance system and a source of drugs' safety information throughout their use in healthcare practice. Additionally, there was no interrelationship between the seriousness of reported adverse reactions and the overall number of patient reports when compared to reports form healthcare professionals.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsEuropean UnionHealth PersonnelHumansPharmacovigilanceadverse reactionEudraVigilancepatient reportingpharmacovigilancesafety monitoring

Identifiers

PMID35010673
PMCPMC8745009

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.