ReviewEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2024
Diverse pharmacovigilance jurisdiction-The right way for global drug safety?
Review in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Part 1 - imidazolines and the changing face of nasal decongestants.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Article
- Governance of artificial intelligence and machine learning in pharmacovigilance: what works today and what more is needed?Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this narrative review is to provide a comparison of several countries with different legislation and approaches to pharmacovigilance and to point out how these impact the number of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that are reported to national competent authorities.
methodsLegislative and statistical data regarding ADR reporting from various national competent authorities' websites, databases, and pharmacovigilance centers were used. In combination with the WHO pharmacovigilance quantitative indicator that was applied to evaluate the effectiveness of particular national pharmacovigilance systems in our scope.
resultsThe study compared pharmacovigilance systems in six countries, focusing on ADR reporting from 2010 onwards. All countries required MAHs to report ADRs, while healthcare professionals' obligations varied. Per-capita ADR reports increased in all countries with available data, with the United States having a significantly higher reporting rate, possibly due to FDA campaigns. Despite starting later, China's per-capita reporting rate surpassed that of the Czech Republic and Japan. The study highlighted various measures taken by countries to enhance ADR reporting systems since the inception of their programs, contributing to the overall increase in reporting rates.
conclusionsADR reporting is a global priority, with efforts made by different countries to strengthen their pharmacovigilance systems. Some success can be seen in gradually improving per-capita ADR reporting rates. The varying reporting rates and measures taken by each country may serve as a basis for further research and exchange of best practices to improve drug safety monitoring worldwide.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38135821What 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.