ArticleDrug safety2026
A Scoping Review of Published Literature on the Contributions of the Natural Health Products (NHPs) Industry to Pharmacovigilance for NHPs.
Article in Drug safety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
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
Abstract
backgroundThe natural health products (NHPs) industry is a key stakeholder in pharmacovigilance for NHPs. However, the specific contributions that the NHPs industry makes to pharmacovigilance for NHPs are not well-understood.
objectiveThis scoping review aimed to identify and map published literature describing the contributions of the NHPs industry to pharmacovigilance activities for NHPs. Assessment of benefit-harm balance for individual NHPs/natural ingredients is outside the scope of this review.
methodsUsing predetermined keywords and Medical Subject Headings, seven international electronic biomedical journal databases were searched to identify articles describing the contributions of the NHPs industry to pharmacovigilance for NHPs in relation to product surveillance and stakeholders' views on the NHPs industry and its pharmacovigilance activities.
resultsOf the 2285 records identified, 40 articles (representing 40 studies) met the inclusion criteria for this review. Among these, 33 described post-marketing surveillance activities and seven explored stakeholders' views. Of the articles describing post-marketing surveillance studies, 22 were authored and/or sponsored by the industry; the remaining 11 involved contributions from the NHPs industry in the form of safety data submitted as spontaneous reports to a national or state pharmacovigilance database. Contributions of the NHPs industry were primarily through passive surveillance via spontaneous reporting. In total, 13 active surveillance studies were undertaken by the NHPs industry, mainly in clinical care settings such as medical centres, hospitals, and private practices, and were focused on single products. There were limited findings relating to stakeholders' views on pharmacovigilance and the NHPs industry's involvement.
conclusionsThe NHPs industry contributes to pharmacovigilance for NHPs primarily through passive surveillance measures. Active surveillance involving the NHPs industry was typically undertaken in non-community settings. Additional research exploring stakeholders' views on and preparedness for participating in active surveillance involving the industry, focusing particularly on models based on the consumer-industry reporting pathway, could identify new strategies for strengthening post-marketing safety monitoring for NHPs.
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.