ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2026
Class-level drug safety surveillance in hospital practice: A pharmacovigilance analysis of 84 therapeutic subclasses from a South Asian tertiary care center.
Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of a pharmacovigilance screening heuristic with expert clinical consensus for adverse drug reaction signal classification at a Pakistani tertiary care hospital.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Post-marketing drug surveillance is critical for strengthening pharmacovigilance in low- and middle-income settings. This study provides the first class-level pharmacovigilance analysis from a South Asian tertiary hospital, generating safety signals across 84 drug subclasses and evaluating concordance between Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) and Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR) methods. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of electronic health records (2018-2022), comprising 718,088 drug administration events. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were identified using ICD-9-CM/ICD-10-CM codes. Disproportionality analyses using PRR and ROR were applied to each subclass. Results: PRR identified positive signals in 5 subclasses, while ROR identified 7. The seven high-risk subclasses included antitubercular agents (PRR 3.24; ROR 4.14), anesthetic muscle relaxants (2.44; 2.84), aminoglycosides (2.24; 2.55), immunosuppressants (2.19; 2.47), neurologic sedatives (2.06; 2.29), antineoplastic cytotoxic agents (1.95; 2.15), and general anesthetic agents (1.88; 2.06). Concordance between PRR and ROR was high (96.4% agreement; κ ≈ 0.80; McNemar Conclusion: This analysis establishes baseline class-level risk estimates in a developing pharmacovigilance environment, identifies disproportionately high-risk drug classes, and supports the robustness of PRR and ROR as complementary screening tools for regional drug safety monitoring.
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.