Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35357659›Full record

Observational studyDrug safety2022

A Landscape Analysis of Post-Marketing Studies Registered in the EU PAS Register and ClinicalTrials.gov Focusing on Pregnancy Outcomes or Breastfeeding Effects: A Contribution from the ConcePTION Project.

Leonardo Roque Pereira, Carlos E Durán, Deborah Layton, Georgios Poulentzas, Panagiotis-Nikolaos Lalagkas, Christos Kontogiorgis, Miriam Sturkenboom

Erratum issuedAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Drug safety, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Leonardo Roque PereiraDepartment of Data Science & Biostatistics, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. L.RoquePereira@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5878-5088
Carlos E DuránDepartment of Data Science & Biostatistics, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Deborah LaytonIQVIA, Reading, UK.
Georgios PoulentzasLaboratory of Hygiene and Environmental Protection, Department of Medicine, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, Greece.
Panagiotis-Nikolaos LalagkasLaboratory of Hygiene and Environmental Protection, Department of Medicine, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, Greece.
Christos KontogiorgisLaboratory of Hygiene and Environmental Protection, Department of Medicine, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, Greece.
Miriam SturkenboomDepartment of Data Science & Biostatistics, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA large proportion of medicine product labels lack information on safety in pregnancy and breastfeeding. To address this gap, pharmaceutical companies are requested to develop post-approval studies regarding the use of drugs by pregnant and breastfeeding women.

objectiveOur study aims to review key features of observational studies in pregnancy and breastfeeding and their impact on the respective medicine product labels.

methodsObservational studies focusing on the safety evaluation of medicines used during pregnancy and breastfeeding were selected from the European Union Register of Post-Authorization Studies (EU PAS register) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We extracted information on the variables of interest and performed an impact assessment on the respective label.

resultsA total of 141 observational studies were eligible. Of these, 63 studies (45%) were based on primary data collection and 55 studies (39%) on secondary use of health data. A small number of studies (8%) aimed to evaluate drug safety during breastfeeding. Studies using secondary data collection lasted around 2.9 years as opposed to 7.5 years' duration for studies using primary data collection. Only two product labels were updated based on the study results.

conclusionThe duration is significantly longer for studies based on primary data collection, and these are also smaller in size (less power), whereas outcomes of interest are similar. For completed studies, the impact on the label was very low. Given the gap in adequate pregnancy information on product labels, the current process of generating evidence in pregnancy and breastfeeding seems neither efficient nor impactful. To support evidence-based decision making by prescribers, this current process might be redesigned.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingPregnancy OutcomeFemaleHumansMarketingPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID35357659
PMCPMC9021095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.