Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40778745›Full record

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.

Mohammed Gebre Dedefo, Gizat M Kassie, Eyob Alemayehu Gebreyohannes, Renly Lim, Elizabeth Roughead, Lisa Kalisch Ellett

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Mohammed Gebre DedefoQuality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, UniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2262-0158
Gizat M KassieQuality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, UniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Eyob Alemayehu GebreyohannesQuality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, UniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0075-4553
Renly LimQuality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, UniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Elizabeth RougheadQuality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, UniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6811-8991
Lisa Kalisch EllettQuality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, UniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5063-6128

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council APP1156368National Health and Medical Research Council APP2020626University of South Australia
6 · The paper itself

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

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsDrug IndustryDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHealth PersonnelAdolescentAdultAgedCanadaDatabases, FactualDipeptidyl-Peptidase IV InhibitorsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPharmacovigilanceUnited KingdomDipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitorsadverse drug reaction reporting systemsdrug monitoringdrug‐related side effects and adverse reactionsdrug safetypharmacovigilance

Identifiers

PMID40778745
PMCPMC12332888

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.