ArticleOpen medicine (Warsaw, Poland)2026
Retrospective analysis of adverse drug reaction patterns from the national monitoring system in a tertiary care hospital in China (2019-2024).
Article in Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To characterize the patterns, risk factors, and reporting trends of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in a tertiary care hospital in China to inform targeted medication safety interventions. Methods: A single-center, retrospective analysis was conducted on 5,564 ADR reports extracted from the National Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring System (2019-2024). Reports were assessed for causality using the WHO-UMC criteria. Descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests were employed to analyze demographics, reporting trends, causative drugs, administration routes, and clinical outcomes. Results: The mean patient age was 62.4 years, with males slightly predominating (52.5 %). ADR reporting increased markedly over the study period, with pharmacists becoming the primary reporters (93.1 % in 2024). Intravenous infusion was the most common route (67.3 %). Antineoplastic agents were the predominant drug class implicated (34.2 %), followed by anti-infectives (10.8 %) and cardiovascular drugs (9.4 %). Statistically significant associations were found between ADR outcomes and both the type of ADR (new/serious vs. general, p<0.001) and the administration route (intravenous vs. oral, p<0.001). No significant association was observed between patient age and ADR outcomes (p=0.244). Conclusions: Antineoplastic drugs and intravenous administration are key ADR risk factors. Enhanced monitoring of high-risk medications and optimized infusion protocols are needed. Limitations include retrospective single-center design and reporting biases.
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.