ArticleFrontiers in health services2025
Active monitoring vs. spontaneous reporting of antineoplastic drug-related adverse drug reactions: evidence from the Chinese hospital pharmacovigilance system.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polypharmacy and adverse drug reactions among hospitalised children: determinants and clinical and economic impact in a multicentre prospective cohort and nested matched case-control study in Northwest Ethiopia.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Article
- Comparative effectiveness and integrated safety of goserelin sustained-release microspheres versus implants in prostate cancer: a patient-based real-world study and systematic review with meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- When behavior outweighs infrastructure: disinfectant and latex exposure and preventive practice among operating room nurses in China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) remain a major barrier to safe and effective cancer therapy. Existing pharmacovigilance systems predominantly rely on spontaneous reporting, which suffers from underreporting and delays. The Chinese Hospital Pharmacovigilance System (CHPS) provides an opportunity for active monitoring using multidimensional hospital data. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study, including 500 patients who received chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy. ADRs were identified through CHPS, classified by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), and assessed using both active monitoring and spontaneous reporting. Signal detection employed disproportionality analyses (PRR, ROR, IC). Risk factors were analyzed with logistic regression, and predictive models for severe ADRs were evaluated with ROC curve analysis. Results: The overall ADR incidence was 37.0% (185/500), with 28.1% classified as severe. Hematologic (29.7%), gastrointestinal (26.0%), and skin/mucosal (19.5%) events were most common. Severe ADRs led to hospitalization (34.6%), treatment discontinuation (23.1%), and death (9.6%). Independent risk factors included age ≥65 years, polypharmacy, hepatic/renal dysfunction, and prolonged drug exposure (≥14 days). Signal detection confirmed known associations and identified potential novel signals, including skin hyperpigmentation with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and cardiotoxicity with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Active monitoring detected more ADRs than spontaneous reporting (160 vs. 50, Conclusion: CHPS-based active monitoring improves the detection, timeliness, and predictive assessment of ADRs compared with spontaneous reporting. These findings support the integration of active monitoring into hospital pharmacovigilance systems and highlight novel safety signals requiring further validation.
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.