ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Practice, knowledge and attitude of physicians and pharmacists towards the spontaneous reporting system of adverse drug reactions in Switzerland.
Article in British journal of clinical 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.
- Increasing the reporting of adverse drug reaction-related hospitalizations using an ICD-10-based identification workflow: A multicentre study from Switzerland.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionReporting adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is essential for detecting drug risks. Despite legal obligations in Switzerland, underreporting remains an issue. This study assessed practice, knowledge and attitudes towards the spontaneous ADR reporting system among physicians and pharmacists.
methodsA nationwide cross-sectional survey was disseminated via professional associations to physicians and pharmacists in Switzerland. The 21-item questionnaire assessed reporting practice, knowledge, attitudes, information needs and improvement suggestions. Multivariable regression (odds ratios [ORs], 95% confidence intervals [95% CIs]) examined associations between participant characteristics and reporting habits.
resultsA total of 1108 participants (834 physicians, 274 pharmacists) were included. ADRs had been suspected by 589 (53.2%), and 562 (50.7%) had reported ≥1 ADR. Most participants rejected the notion that reporting is pointless (999, 90.2%). Although 716 (64.6%) were aware of reporting obligations, 477 (43.1%) perceived reporting as time-consuming and 270 (24.4%) reported legal concerns. About half indicated no lack of incentives (587, 53.0%) and no concerns regarding personal (580, 52.3%) or patient data protection (545, 49.2%). More than half desired clearer guidance on reportable ADRs (609, 55.0%) and 648 (58.5%) expressed interest in pharmacovigilance training. Reporting ADRs was independently associated with increasing age and training (ORs between 1.28 [95% CI: 1.15, 1.42] and 1.92 [1.32, 2.79]), whereas investing >10 min in reporting was associated with age ≥60 (OR 1.59 [1.07, 2.38]), training (OR 1.28 [1.14, 1.45]) and pharmacist status (OR 1.83 [1.34, 2.51]).
conclusionThe fundamental willingness to report ADRs despite a simultaneous lack of specific knowledge indicates a need for targeted information campaigns and training opportunities.
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.