Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38931474›Full record

ReviewPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Pharmacovigilance in Vaccines: Importance, Main Aspects, Perspectives, and Challenges-A Narrative Review.

Katharine Valéria Saraiva Hodel, Bianca Sampaio Dotto Fiuza, Rodrigo Souza Conceição, Augusto Cezar Magalhães Aleluia, Thassila Nogueira Pitanga, Larissa Moraes Dos Santos Fonseca, Camila Oliveira Valente, Cintia Silva Minafra-Rezende, Bruna Aparecida Souza Machado

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Katharine Valéria Saraiva HodelSENAI Institute of Innovation (ISI) in Health Advanced Systems (CIMATEC ISI SAS), SENAI CIMATEC University Center, Salvador 41650-010, Bahia State, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-7898-6672
Bianca Sampaio Dotto FiuzaSENAI Institute of Innovation (ISI) in Health Advanced Systems (CIMATEC ISI SAS), SENAI CIMATEC University Center, Salvador 41650-010, Bahia State, Brazil.
Rodrigo Souza ConceiçãoDepartment of Medicine, College of Pharmacy, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador 40170-115, Bahia State, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-3625-9535
Augusto Cezar Magalhães AleluiaSENAI Institute of Innovation (ISI) in Health Advanced Systems (CIMATEC ISI SAS), SENAI CIMATEC University Center, Salvador 41650-010, Bahia State, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-2340-860X
Thassila Nogueira PitangaSENAI Institute of Innovation (ISI) in Health Advanced Systems (CIMATEC ISI SAS), SENAI CIMATEC University Center, Salvador 41650-010, Bahia State, Brazil.
Larissa Moraes Dos Santos FonsecaSENAI Institute of Innovation (ISI) in Health Advanced Systems (CIMATEC ISI SAS), SENAI CIMATEC University Center, Salvador 41650-010, Bahia State, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-4405-1582
Camila Oliveira ValenteSENAI Institute of Innovation (ISI) in Health Advanced Systems (CIMATEC ISI SAS), SENAI CIMATEC University Center, Salvador 41650-010, Bahia State, Brazil.
Cintia Silva Minafra-RezendeFaculty of Veterinary and Animal Science, Federal University of Goiás, Goiânia 74690-900, Goiás State, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-0727-5651
Bruna Aparecida Souza MachadoSENAI Institute of Innovation (ISI) in Health Advanced Systems (CIMATEC ISI SAS), SENAI CIMATEC University Center, Salvador 41650-010, Bahia State, Brazil.

Funding

National Council for Scientific and Technological Development 424911/2021-3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pharmacovigilance plays a central role in safeguarding public health by continuously monitoring the safety of vaccines, being critical in a climate of vaccine hesitancy, where public trust is paramount. Pharmacovigilance strategies employed to gather information on adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) include pre-registration data, media reports, clinical trials, and societal reporting. Early detection of AEFIs during clinical trials is crucial for thorough safety analysis and preventing serious reactions once vaccines are deployed. This review highlights the importance of societal reporting, encompassing contributions from community members, healthcare workers, and pharmaceutical companies. Technological advancements such as quick response (QR) codes can facilitate prompt AEFI reporting. While vaccines are demonstrably safe, the possibility of adverse events necessitates continuous post-marketing surveillance. However, underreporting remains a challenge, underscoring the critical role of public engagement in pharmacovigilance. This narrative review comprehensively examines and synthesizes key aspects of virus vaccine pharmacovigilance, with special considerations for specific population groups. We explore applicable legislation, the spectrum of AEFIs associated with major vaccines, and the unique challenges and perspectives surrounding pharmacovigilance in this domain.

Indexed as

adverse eventsadverse events following immunizationpharmacovigilancevaccines

Identifiers

PMID38931474
PMCPMC11206969

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.