Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35260158›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

A cross-sectional study: comparison of public perceptions of adverse drug reaction reporting and monitoring in eastern and western China.

Ningsheng Wang, Yue Chen, Biqi Ren, Yufang Xiang, Nan Zhao, Xianyan Zhan, Bianling Feng

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Article
  13. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ningsheng WangThe Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shannxi, China.
Yue ChenThe Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shannxi, China.
Biqi RenThe Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shannxi, China.
Yufang XiangThe Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shannxi, China.
Nan ZhaoThe Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shannxi, China.
Xianyan ZhanThe First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Bianling FengThe Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shannxi, China. fengbianling@163.com.
Xi'an Jiaotong University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdverse drug reactions (ADRs) cause a substantial clinical and economic burden. Spontaneous reporting of ADRs by the public is crucial. In some developed countries like the United States, Canada, consumers have been allowed to directly report ADRs, however, convenient channels for direct ADR reporting by the public are lacking in China.

objectiveWe aimed to compare the knowledge, attitudes, and practice(KAP) regarding monitoring and reporting of adverse drug reaction (ADR) among the general public in eastern and western China.

methodsA questionnaire-guided cross-sectional study was administered to participants in Nanjing and Xi'an during April-July 2019. A descriptive statistical analysis was used to describe respondents' demographic information and other results. The t-test and analysis of variance were used to test the differences in knowledge and attitudes among respondents with different demographic characteristics. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to examine factors associated with knowledge and attitudes.

resultsA total of 1085 questionnaires were distributed in this survey, 869 valid questionnaires were returned, the recovery rate was 80.09%. Respondents showed poor knowledge of the definition of ADRs and reporting criteria, with a significant difference in average knowledge scores according to education level, gender, and age group. Most respondents had positive attitudes toward ADR monitoring and reporting, with no significant differences in knowledge and attitude scores between the two cities. In total, 68.93% of respondents said they would feedback information to health care professionals, most (84.35%) would take the initiative to report ADRs if there were a convenient method. More than half (58.57%) of respondents were more likely to report ADRs by telephone.

conclusionThe findings of our study indicated that health care professionals should encourage patients to actively report ADR. China should also explore ways to facilitate direct public reporting of ADRs by improving relevant laws and regulations.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsPublic OpinionAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsCross-Sectional StudiesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansPharmacovigilanceSurveys and QuestionnairesAdverse drug reactionGeneral publicKnowledge, attitudes and practicePharmacovigilance

Identifiers

PMID35260158
PMCPMC8905784
OpenAlexW4221038512

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.