ArticleDrug safety2023
Comparative Analysis of Information Provided in German Adverse Drug Reaction Reports Sent by Physicians, Pharmacists and Consumers.
Article in Drug safety, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do consumers and healthcare professionals report the same adverse event differently? A paired analysis of duplicate vaccine safety reports in Norway.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Prescribing trends and spontaneous reporting patterns of adverse drug reactions of ADHD medications in children and adolescents in germany: A retrospective analysis (2013-2022).European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2026Article
- Metabolic Disturbances Associated with Beta-Blocker Therapy: New Insights from a Large-Scale Pharmacovigilance Study.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Patterns of Spontaneous Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in Germany From 2012 to 2021.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026Article
- Vigi4Eudra-score: Evaluation of the completeness of spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports in EudraVigilance.PloS one · 2026Article
- Cytopenias as Adverse Drug Reactions: A 10-Year Analysis of Reporting Structure, Rate, and Trend.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Completeness of spontaneously reported adverse drug reactions in 4 databases.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Analysis of drug-drug interactions in spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports from EudraVigilance focusing on psychiatric drugs and somatic medication.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- [Drug safety and mandatory reporting].Die Ophthalmologie · 2025Article
- Severe drug-associated anaphylaxis: a complementary descriptive analyses of registry cases and spontaneous reports.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Factors associated with the completeness of information provided in adverse drug reaction reports of physicians, pharmacists and consumers from Germany.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- [Drug safety and mandatory reporting].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Review
- Analyses of Adverse Drug Reactions to Fluoroquinolones in Spontaneous Reports Before and After the Referral and in Clinical Routine Cases.Drugs in R&D · 2025Article
- Pharmacovigilance Strategies to Address Resistance to Antibiotics and Inappropriate Use-A Narrative Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Safety assessment of deutetrabenazine: real-world adverse event analysis from the FAERS database.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAdverse drug reactions (ADRs) can be reported by Health Care Professionals (HCPs; e.g., physicians, pharmacists) and non-Health Care Professionals (non-HCPs; e.g., consumers). Previous studies investigating differences between reports from HCPs and non-HCPs rarely considered the completeness of information provided. In addition, they mostly did not distinguish between physicians and pharmacists or were performed years ago. The aim of our study was to analyse and compare the completeness of information provided in reports from physicians, pharmacists and consumers from Germany in a more recent dataset. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe analysed all spontaneous reports from Germany received between 2018 and 2021 in the ADR database EudraVigilance exclusively reported by physicians (n = 69,976), pharmacists (n = 42,396) or consumers (n = 121,144). Demographical parameters of the patients were analysed descriptively. Completeness of reports was evaluated applying an established score (vigiGrade). Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using logistic regression analysis in order to identify report, patient, drug or ADR-specific information provided more often in reports from physicians, pharmacists or consumers.
resultsWithin the study period the number of reports per year by physicians and pharmacists decreased steadily, while an opposite trend was observed for consumer reports. The proportion of female patients was higher in reports from pharmacists (64.4%) and consumers (64.8%) compared to those from physicians (55.3%). On average, patients in reports from pharmacists (58.7) were older compared to those from physicians (53.5) and consumers (52.6). As an example for the presence of specific information, the time to onset of the ADR could be calculated more often in consumer compared to physician (OR 1.9 [1.8-1.9]) and pharmacist reports (OR 1.7 [1.6-1.7]). In contrast, pharmacist (OR 0.5 [0.4-0.5]) and consumer (OR 0.5 [0.5-0.5]) reports included the indication of the suspected drug less often than physician reports. Physician reports on average (mean = 0.5) were slightly more complete according to the vigiGrade score compared to reports from consumers (mean = 0.4) and pharmacists (mean = 0.4).
conclusionThe ADR reports from consumers were comparable with regard to the completeness score with those from physicians and pharmacists underlining their value. Differences in completeness of specific information between the reporter types were found, suggesting that a common reporting of interactions between the three reporters may further improve the completeness of ADR reports. Furthermore, stratified analysis of ADR reports per reporter type may be helpful for certain objectives in scientific research.
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.