ArticleScientific reports2024
Evaluation of a simplified pharmacovigilance tool for general practitioners: 5 years of insight.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is the cornerstone of pharmacovigilance. However, major underreporting exists. The main objective of this study was to assess the use of a pharmacovigilance simplified reporting tool (PSRT) by general practitioners (GPs) and, secondarily, to describe the quality of ADR reports during this period. The PSRT was proposed on June 1st, 2015, for the 1290 GPs in the Western Normandy Region. The number and quality of ADRs reported monthly by GPs were prospectively collected from June 1st, 2015, to May 31st, 2020 (Period 2), and compared to those reported during a control period (June 1st, 2010, to May 31st, 2015, Period 1). During all the periods, 920 reports were made by 307 GPs (198 reports in Period 1 and 722 reports in Period 2), with 477 reports (51.8%) using the PSRT. During Period 2, the monthly number of reports was multiplied by 3.5 (p < 0.0001), and the number of GPs was 1.4 compared to that in Period 1 (p = 0.01). Our PSRT showed effectiveness in quantitative and qualitative terms. It must now go further and be integrated into GP software to facilitate ADR reporting nationwide.
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.