ArticleScientific reports2025
Factors associated with the completeness of information provided in adverse drug reaction reports of physicians, pharmacists and consumers from Germany.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do consumers and healthcare professionals report the same adverse event differently? A paired analysis of duplicate vaccine safety reports in Norway.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Patterns of Spontaneous Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in Germany From 2012 to 2021.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026Article
- Trends in adverse drug reaction reporting by dentists: a 15-year analysis of German pharmacovigilance data.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Oral Side Effects of the Most Commonly Prescribed Drugs in Germany.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Divergent System Organ Class Safety Profiles of Isotretinoin Versus Topical Retinoids: An EudraVigilance Disproportionality Analysis.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Systematic analysis of adverse reaction signals induced by leflunomide, upadacitinib, and baricitinib in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a FAERS database analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Vigi4Eudra-score: Evaluation of the completeness of spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports in EudraVigilance.PloS one · 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
The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with the completeness of spontaneous reports of adverse drug reactions (ADR) from different reporter types. We analysed 69,976 spontaneous ADR reports from physicians, 42,396 from pharmacists and 121,144 from consumers. The adjusted vigiGrade completeness score for ADR reports from EudraVigilance was used to evaluate the completeness of information provided in the structured format of each ADR report. Mean values of the vigiGrade completeness scores were calculated for various factors such as age, sex, receive year, seriousness and causal relationship. For all three reporters, the completeness of the ADR reports referring to older patients and children/ adolescents was lower than for middle-aged patients. Furthermore, generally poorly documented reports often included more than one suspected/interacting drug or no information on the patients' sex. Additionally, ADR reports with an at least possible causal relationship were more completely documented than those with a not assessable causal relationship in a subset of 479 ADR individually assessed reports. Differences between the reporters were only observed regarding seriousness criteria and receive year. The missing of certain information parameters in ADR reports from all three reporter types may serve as indicators for a poorer overall completeness of documentation.
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.