ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Safety of individualized herbal medicine for dysmenorrhea: pharmacovigilance from South Korea's national pilot.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In 2020, South Korea's National Health Insurance (NHI) began reimbursing individually prescribed herbal medicine decoctions (HMDs) for dysmenorrhea, highlighting the need for robust post-coverage safety monitoring using national claims data. Objective: To evaluate the safety of reimbursed HMDs for dysmenorrhea and demonstrate a claims-based pharmacovigilance approach to inform benefit management and clinical guideline integration. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Health Insurance Review & Assessment (HIRA) national claims database from 2015 to 2022. HMD users were coarsened-exact-matched to nonusers on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Difference-in-differences models compared pre- and post-coverage outcomes at 1, 3, 6, and 11 months. Primary outcomes were hepatotoxicity and renal failure; secondary outcomes included allergic reactions, emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Results: The matched cohort comprised 8,989 HMD users and 8,989 nonusers. Reimbursed HMDs were not associated with increased risk of severe adverse events at any time point. At 3 months, DID estimates were -2.6 (95% CI -411.8, 406.6) for hepatotoxicity and -7.2 (95% CI -402.3, 388.0) for renal failure, with consistent safety patterns across endpoints and sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Coverage of individually prescribed HMDs under South Korea's NHI system was not associated with elevated serious safety risks for dysmenorrhea. These findings support continued reimbursement and provide a scalable template for claims-based pharmacovigilance using standardized endpoints, routine signal detection, and feedback to benefit design and clinical practice.
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.