ArticleDrug safety2025
Reporting Adverse Drug Events: A Comparison of an Online Patient Tool Versus Telephone-Based Monitoring in Community Pharmacy Patients in the Netherlands.
Article in Drug safety, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03093818 (PREemptive Pharmacogenomic Testing for Preventing Adverse Drug REactions), which is not on this 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.
PREemptive Pharmacogenomic Testing for Preventing Adverse Drug REactions
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdverse drug events (ADEs) are events occurring after the administration of a drug. Several authorities are involved in capturing these ADEs to improve pharmacovigilance. These ADEs are reported directly to healthcare professionals or via the telephone, online, or e-mail and are crucial for maintaining drug safety.
objectivePatient-reported adverse drug events (ADEs) are collected using various tools, though not much is known with regard to the comparability of these different methodologies. It is known that telephone-based surveys result in a higher report rate, although it is not known if this has an effect on the type of ADEs that are reported. In this prospective study, we aimed to investigate if there are differences in the number, type, and severity of ADEs reported via telephone and online in an event monitoring setting.
methodsPatients included in Dutch community pharmacies were asked whether they experienced any ADEs via telephone and online (Lareb Intensive Monitoring) surveys as part of the PREPARE study. The PREPARE study was a multicenter study, researching the effect of genotype-guided dosing on the incidence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions. With the paired data acquired in the PREPARE study, we investigated differences in the number, type, and severity of the reported ADEs.
resultsPatients (N = 525) completed both the telephone and online surveys. Of the 525 patients who completed both surveys, 326 reported ADEs via telephone and 239 online. A visual comparison showed a similar distribution in the type of ADEs among the methods except for less commonly reported types of ADEs and cardiac disorders. The perceived severity of ADEs were proportionally reported as more severe during the telephone survey versus the online survey.
conclusionsOur study showed a clear difference in the number of ADEs reported during telephone and online monitoring. Additionally, the differences in the type of ADEs and the severity distribution of both tools shows that the tools are not exchangeable (CT.gov identifier: NCT03093818).
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.