ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Assessment of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Pharmacovigilance and Materiovigilance among Oral Health Practitioners in India.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trends in adverse drug reaction reporting by dentists: a 15-year analysis of German pharmacovigilance data.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- True Allergies to Articaine: A 25-Year Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Pharmacovigilance - Technological Advancements, Recent Developments and Innovations.Current drug safety · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This electronic survey was carried out to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practices among the oral health practitioners. Methods: A questionnaire survey was conducted among undergraduates, graduated practitioners, and specialist practitioners. A Google Form that included a specified instruction format, informed consent with a clear description of the purpose of the study, and questions in different categories were sent through Whatsapp and email. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze responses. The association of knowledge and attitude with respect to oral health professionals was analyzed with the Chi-square test. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 570 participants. Thirty percent of participants encountered ADR related to the drugs available in the market and 33.2% of participants encountered adverse reaction related to materials used in practice. ADR should be reported as soon as it is detected, according to this study about 12.1% of participants reported the ADRs, and this reporting is primarily for patient safety. Almost 66.8% of participants perceived that dental products can cause ADR owing to a lack of information about ADR and reporting procedures, or due to fear of legal concerns. Only about 9.5% of the participants had previously attended an ADR workshop. Conclusion: Oral health practitioners have a general understanding of ADR; however, there is substantial evidence of underreporting and a lack of reporting system information. Organizing an orientation program and raising awareness about ADR reporting could help improve spontaneous reporting and better patient care.
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.