ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Constructing an evaluation framework for primary pharmacovigilance systems in developing countries: a case study from China.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to develop an evaluation framework for primary pharmacovigilance systems based on the Chinese context, with potential applicability to regions with similar system maturity. The framework was informed by the WHO manual and tailored to national policies and resource constraints to support consistent pharmacovigilance practices in similar settings and enhance medication safety. Methods: This study employed semi-structured interviews, literature review, brainstorming, group discussions, and other common methods to establish a preliminary indicator system. The Delphi Method was employed to screen indicators at various levels based on inclusion principles. Subsequently, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was applied to determine indicator weights. Results: The effective response rates for both rounds of questionnaires were 100%. Furthermore, the coefficients of reliability were 0.87 and 0.88 for each round, and the Kendall's W for the process and outcome indicators were 0.173 and 0.236. The significance tests for Kendall's W were both P < 0.001. The final evaluation indicator system consisted of 3 first-level indicators, 9 second-level indicators, and 35 third-level indicators. Conclusion: This study developed a practical and context-sensitive evaluation framework for primary pharmacovigilance systems in China. The framework offers a feasible assessment tool and may serve as a reference for regions with similar development stages or incomplete pharmacovigilance systems, providing guidance for system improvement and resource allocation.
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.