ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025
Characterization of Japanese Risk Management Plans after 10 Years of Implementation: 2013-2023.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Important potential risks not reflected in Japanese drug labeling: implications for risk management plan termination.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2026Article
- Important missing information in Japan's risk management plans: a cross-sectional analysis after a decade of implementation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA decade since Japan introduced risk management plans offers an opportunity to analyze their characteristics and support future pharmacovigilance efforts.
objectivesTo describe (1) the types of post-marketing studies (PMSs) and the number of safety concerns and efficacy concerns by drug classification and (2) the distribution of important identified and important potential risks by type of safety concern.
methodsWe extracted data and examined the characteristics of the Japanese risk management plans (J-RMP). The following information from J-RMPs available as of May 2023 and the corresponding package inserts of the drugs was extracted: the brand name, the active ingredient, the first submission and the last update dates of J-RMP, safety concerns with their safety specifications, efficacy concerns, the type of PMSs, and the drug classification codes.
resultsA total of 637 J-RMPs were included in the analysis. The median number of safety and efficacy concerns per J-RMP was 8, with category-specific medians as follows: 4 important identified risks, 2 important potential risks, 0 important missing information, and 1 efficacy concerns. Among the 481 J-RMPs listing at least one PMS, 86.5% included only use-result surveys (primary data collection), 9.4% included only database PMSs, and 4.2% included both. Safety concerns related to neoplasms and pregnancy/birth defects were most commonly listed as important potential risks.
conclusionsJapanese PMSs more commonly rely on primary data collection. Adverse events with delayed effects tend to be classified as important potential risks. The information contained in J-RMPs is valuable for gaining insights into pharmacovigilance activities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40461931What 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.