ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Completeness of spontaneously reported adverse drug reactions in 4 databases.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- VigiBase: Resource Profile Update with a Summary of Global Patterns and Trends in Adverse Event Reports for Medicines and Vaccines.Drug safety · 2026Review
- An updated pharmacovigilance evidence from U.S. tobacco problem reports following the FDA safety communication on e-cigarettes and seizures.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Global patterns and trends in spontaneous reporting systems: VigiBase, FAERS, VAERS, and JADER.Frontiers in drug safety and regulation · 2026Article
- Completeness of spontaneously reported adverse drug reactions in 4 databases.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
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
aimsTo assess the completeness of information provided in adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports in 4 spontaneous report databases.
methodsThe study was conducted using freely accessible ADR reports from the Canada Vigilance Adverse Reaction Online Database, the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database, the UK Yellow Card Scheme and the Danish Medicines Agency ADR Database, covering the period 2014-2023. The variables used to evaluate the completeness of ADR reports were selected based on the vigiGrade completeness tool. Descriptive statistics were used to report the completeness of information in each ADR report, while chi-square tests were used to analyse differences in completeness by seriousness of report.
resultsIn total, 290 079 individual case safety reports were analysed: 4289 from the Canadian database; 269 763 from the FAERS database; 13 624 from the UK Yellow Card Scheme; and 2403 from the Danish database. The most frequently completed information was the primary reporter, with nearly 100% completeness. The most frequently omitted information was the route of administration, with completion scores of 44% in the UK Yellow Card Scheme, 55% in the Danish database and 58% in the Canadian database. In FAERS, the event date was the most frequently omitted information with a completeness rate of 50%.
conclusionThe completeness of information varied across different variables, with information frequently omitted for route of administration and event date. Enhancing awareness about providing complete information during ADR reporting is essential for collecting complete data and allowing signal detection.
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.