ArticlePreventive medicine reports2025
Use of mobile technology for reporting the pharmacovigilance of vaccines in Panama.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Monitoring adverse reactions is essential to confirm vaccine safety profiles. Studies using electronic tools for data collection may reach a broader audience, improving data efficiency and integrity, reducing study costs and simplifying data collection compared with nonelectronic methods. This study aimed to validate electronic versus paper diaries for reporting postimmunization reactions in Panama. Methods: An experimental design was conducted with three groups (children, pregnant women, and older adults). Groups were divided into one subgroup using paper diary and one using electronic diary. Diary assignments were subsequently reversed in children group, which parents completed. Symptoms and reporting frequency were collected in 2020 and 2021. Information reported in paper diaries was entered into an electronic case report form and reconciled. Users' adherence, differences between reported symptom frequency and users' acceptability of diaries were evaluated. Results: A total of 180 participants were included: 79 children, 21 pregnant women, 80 older adults. Children group showed greater adherence to both diaries. No significant differences were found in response times in the electronic diary between groups. More symptoms were reported in the electronic diary. The experience of using diaries, no matter which one, was similar. Conclusions: Results indicate young people adapt better to technological tools than older adults, suggesting tools should be adjusted according to the user's age. Furthermore, electronic applications for reporting postimmunization reactions offer suitable pharmacovigilance alternatives, providing real-time information, and requiring fewer staff, leading to improved health outcomes, patient compliance, and data for research and public health analysis, supporting global vaccine development.
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.