ArticlePloS one2025
A comparative analysis of three pharmacovigilance system assessment tools.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThree key tools are currently available for assessing pharmacovigilance systems at the national level: the Indicator-Based Pharmacovigilance Assessment Tool (IPAT), the World Health Organization (WHO) Pharmacovigilance Indicators, and the Vigilance Module of the WHO Global Benchmarking Tool (GBT). These instruments are designed to evaluate the functionality and performance of national regulatory authorities within the context of their respective pharmacovigilance systems.
objectivesThis study aims to identify, analyze, and compare the core characteristics and operational features of these pharmacovigilance assessment tools to better understand their scope, application, and limitations. METHODOLOGY: A structured document analysis was conducted on the three identified tools. The content was systematically reviewed, categorized, and synthesized to facilitate a comparative evaluation of its design, focus areas, and assessment criteria.
resultsThe analysis revealed that the available tools encompass a broad spectrum of indicators targeting different dimensions of pharmacovigilance systems, such as infrastructure, processes, and outcomes. However, exclusive reliance on a single tool may offer a limited perspective, potentially overlooking critical components of a national pharmacovigilance framework.
conclusionThis study underscores the heterogeneity of existing pharmacovigilance assessment tools and emphasizes the importance of context-specific adaptation. A tailored approach, involving the strategic selection or integration of tools, is recommended to ensure a comprehensive and accurate evaluation of national pharmacovigilance systems.
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.