ArticlePharmacology research & perspectives2025
Comparison of the Completeness of Spontaneously Reported Adverse Drug Reactions by Consumers, Healthcare Professionals, and Pharmaceutical Companies: An Evaluation of Databases From Two High-Income Countries.
Article in Pharmacology research & perspectives, 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.
- Metabolic Disturbances Associated with Beta-Blocker Therapy: New Insights from a Large-Scale Pharmacovigilance Study.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Development and application of the vaccine reporting quality score to evaluate the vaccine adverse event reporting system.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Quality and Timeliness of Pharmacovigilance Reporting in Malawi: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Individual Case Safety Reports.Drug, healthcare and patient safety · 2026Article
- Comparison of the Completeness of Spontaneously Reported Adverse Drug Reactions by Consumers, Healthcare Professionals, and Pharmaceutical Companies: An Evaluation of Databases From Two High-Income Countries.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 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
This study assessed whether the completeness of spontaneously reported adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports differs between consumers and healthcare professionals when submitted directly to regulators, and how this compares to reports from pharmaceutical companies. ADR reports (2014-2023) were obtained from public databases in Canada and the United Kingdom (UK), focusing on the medicine classes sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. ADR report completeness was assessed using vigiGrade tool variables. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used for analysis. A total of 17 897 reports were analyzed-13 613 from the UK Yellow Card Scheme and 4284 from Canada. Most Canadian reports were submitted by pharmaceutical companies (55%), while in the UK, healthcare professionals submitted the majority (69%). Few reports were submitted directly by consumers in either Canada (4%) or the UK (7%). In Canada, the average completeness was 82% for consumer and healthcare professional reports and 57% for pharmaceutical companies. In the UK, completeness was 80% (consumers), 82% (healthcare professionals), and 69% (pharmaceutical companies). Canadian pharmaceutical company reports were significantly less complete for age, sex, outcome, dose, indication, and route of administration (all p < 0.001). In the UK, they were less complete for age, sex, and route of administration (all p < 0.001). In conclusion, reports submitted directly to regulators by consumers and healthcare professionals were more complete than those from pharmaceutical companies. The low consumer reporting rate, yet high completeness rate, highlights the need to encourage direct reporting to regulators to improve medicine safety monitoring.
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.