ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
A comparison of the labeling of antineoplastic and supportive medicines in China, Japan, and the US based on the WHO essential medicines list.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study systematically compares the safety information presented on drug labels for antineoplastic and supportive care medications listed on the WHO Essential Medicines List (EML) across three major pharmaceutical markets: China, Japan, and the United States. Methods: The safety information of the same drugs approved in the three countries was compared and analyzed, involving the calculation of the proportion of each safety information and the percentage of boxed warnings (PBW) to all information on the label, we also comparative analysis of pediatric medication information studied from each country. Results: There were substantial differences in each safety information of the labels in three countries. Except for the proportion of information on use in the elderly, the proportion of each type of safety information differed significantly between countries, and the content also varied widely. Concordance of the presence or the absence of a BW on the label between China, Japan, and the US was 36% on the total labels. Of the 19 drugs, Japan had the most pediatric drug information with 13 drugs, followed by the US with nine drugs and China with eight drugs. Conclusion: There were significant differences in the safety information on drug labels in China, Japan, and the US from the same manufacturer, which could pose a risk to patients. Regulatory agencies should better align their approaches to labeling to prevent confusion or misunderstanding across regions.
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.