ArticleThe International journal of risk & safety in medicine2026
Risk management plans and drug safety in Canada: A cross-sectional study.
Article in The International journal of risk & safety in medicine, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundHealth Canada uses risk management plans (RMPs) to identify and monitor risks associated with drugs in the postmarket phase but does not make the contents of these RMPs public.ObjectiveTo identify information about RMPs that is available in other Health Canada documents and to analyze extent of the information.MethodsA list of new active substances (NAS) approved by Health Canada between July 1, 2015 and May 5, 2025 was generated. These drugs were searched on the Summary Basis of Decision website and any information about the contents of the RMPs was copied verbatim. The information was read iteratively and grouped into themes.ResultsThere were 385 NAS approved and 381 had RMPs. For 301 the only information was that they had been reviewed by Health Canada and found to be acceptable. The information about the other 80 was typically vague and revealed little about how the information that they generated would be used to enhance safety.ConclusionHealth Canada needs to make RMPs publicly available, should explain how their implementation will be monitored and evaluated, how the information they generate will be used to enhance drug safety and should publish updates to them as necessary.
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.