ArticleDrug safety2026
International Medicinal Product Information Documents: A Quantitative Content Analysis of Instructions for Preventing, Mitigating, and Monitoring Adverse Drug Reactions.
Article in Drug safety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
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
introductionMedicinal product information documents (PIDs) detail clinical characteristics and instructions for monitoring, preventing, and mitigating adverse drug reactions (ADRs). They vary across countries, but there have been no recent international comparisons. We have therefore quantified and compared the completeness of the information given in drug labelling from different countries.
methodsFrom the websites of 35 regulatory agencies, we retrieved the PIDs of medicinal products that were involved in signals communicated by regulators in 2014-2019. We developed a data extraction framework based on the Dose-relatedness, Time course, Susceptibility (DoTS) clinical classification of ADRs and used its implications for prevention and mitigation to score the completeness of related instructions in PIDs. To extract and classify monitoring instructions, we used a modified Systematic Instructions for Monitoring (SIM) method. PIDs had sufficiently complete instructions for prevention when the DoTS score was ≥ 5/12, and sufficiently complete monitoring instructions when the SIM score was ≥ 3/6. We used proportions of PIDs having a score ≥ 1 to determine the relative availability of clinical characteristics or instructions in a country, compared with all other countries. We quantified their pairwise disagreements using Jaccard's distance and identified clusters with similar patterns of completeness using agglomerative hierarchical clustering.
resultsPIDs were available on the websites of 18 of 35 regulatory agencies. They concerned 364 distinct medicinal products, which were involved in 627 signals. Across all countries, the instructions for prevention or mitigation met sufficient completeness for a median of 30% of PIDs (IQR 28-33%), while instructions for monitoring were sufficiently complete for a median of 22% (IQR 19-25%). The information given by the European Union (EU) and Canada had the highest relative availability of clinical characteristics and prevention or mitigation instructions, with a proportion of 0.86. Canadian and EU PIDs also had the highest relative availability of monitoring instructions, with proportions of 0.79 and 0.70. Two clusters of countries showed low disagreements: Malaysia and Singapore; Australia and New Zealand.
conclusionsThis study suggests that PIDs often do not contain complete instructions for prevention, mitigation, and monitoring of ADRs. Extending existing regulatory cooperation globally would enable regulators to access clinical characteristics and instructions from different regions.
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.