ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2022
Changes in suspected adverse drug reaction reporting via the yellow card scheme in Wales following the introduction of a National Reporting Indicator.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Improving adverse drug event reporting by healthcare professionals.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluating transparency in AI/ML model characteristics for FDA-reviewed medical devices.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Awareness and Attitudes Regarding Adverse Drug Events and Reporting in South Africa.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2025Article
- Investigating the Benefit-Risk Profile of Drugs: From Spontaneous Reporting Systems to Real-World Data for Pharmacovigilance.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Changes in suspected adverse drug reaction reporting via the yellow card scheme in Wales following the introduction of a National Reporting Indicator.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThis study aimed to assess the impact of a National Reporting Indicator (NRI) on rates of reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions using the Yellow Card scheme following the introduction of the NRI in Wales (UK) in April 2014.
methodsYellow Card reporting data for general practitioners and other reporting groups in Wales and England for the financial years 2014-15 (study period 1) and 2015-16 (study period 2) were obtained from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and compared with those for 2013-14 (pre-NRI control period).
resultsThe numbers of Yellow Cards submitted by general practitioners in Wales were 271, 665 and 870 in the control period, study period 1 and study period 2, respectively. This is equivalent to an increase of 145% in study period 1 and 221% in study period 2 compared with the 12-month control period (2013-14). Corresponding increases in England were 17% and 37%, respectively (P < .001 chi-squared test). The numbers of Yellow Cards submitted by other groups in Wales were 906, 795 and 947 in each of the study periods.
conclusionsIntroduction of the NRI corresponded with a significant increase in the number of Yellow Cards submitted by general practitioners in Wales. General practitioner reporting rates continued to increase year on year through to 2018-19 with the NRI still in place. No concomitant change was found in reporting rates by other groups in the health boards in Wales.
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.