ArticleThe Veterinary record2022
UK veterinary professionals' perceptions and experiences of adverse drug reaction reporting.
Article in The Veterinary record, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Developing electronic health records as a source of real-world data for veterinary pharmacoepidemiology.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- A narrative review of veterinary pharmacovigilance situations and prospects in East African countries.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Review
- A review of adverse events in animals and children after secondary exposure to transdermal hormone-containing medicinal products.Veterinary record open · 2022Review
- UK veterinary professionals' perceptions and experiences of adverse drug reaction reporting.The Veterinary record · 2022Article
- An e-Reporting Tool for Facilitating Submission of Veterinary Adverse Drug Reaction Reports.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSpontaneous reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is the cornerstone of pharmacovigilance. Despite this, it is believed that there is significant under-reporting in the veterinary setting. Low reporting rates delay marketing authorisation holders (MAHs) and regulators taking mitigating action in the case of safety concerns.
methodWe designed a survey to explore the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of UK veterinary professionals towards ADR reporting. The survey was advertised widely through conventional and social media and at several conferences.
resultsIn total, 260 respondents completed the survey, including 210 veterinary surgeons, 49 veterinary nurses and one suitably qualified person. Respondents generally understood the need to report ADRs. The main barrier to reporting was the suspected ADR being well known, and the most popular potential facilitator identified was the ability to report via the practice management system. Facilitation via education in the form of a pharmacovigilance themed continuing professional development event was particularly popular among veterinary nurses, who reported time as being less of a barrier to reporting than their veterinary surgeon counterparts.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that technological interventions to facilitate reporting and empowerment of veterinary nurses to report through a tailored training event should be explored further.
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.