ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2026
Framework for identifying reference countries in drug safety evaluation: an application of the analytic hierarchy process.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Effective monitoring of global drug safety information is increasingly important for public health. However, the large volume of global safety data, combined with variations in pharmaceutical systems and national regulatory contexts, poses challenges in prioritizing relevant information. To address this challenge, this study aimed to develop a set of criteria for selecting reference countries when evaluating foreign drug safety data. Methods: Experts from academia and the pharmaceutical industry participated in focus group interviews (FGIs) to identify key factors for selecting reference countries. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was then used to determine the relative importance of these factors. Additional FGIs were conducted to assess the validity of the resulting framework, including the relative weights of each criterion. Results: A total of 11 criteria were identified - six country-specific and five drug-specific. Among the country-specific criteria, 'countries officially being referenced' (weight = 0.374) and 'countries with strong pharmaceutical safety management' (0.256) were rated as most important. For drug-specific criteria, 'reliability of the report' (0.433) and 'accessibility of the report' (0.181) were prioritized. In contrast, criteria such as 'countries with advanced economies' (0.060) and 'drug's country of origin' (0.090) were considered less significant. Experts from both academia and industry generally supported the prioritization. Conclusions: This study proposes a structured, evidence-based framework for referencing overseas pharmaceutical safety information. By assigning relative weights to country - and drug-specific criteria, the framework facilitates more consistent and efficient decision-making by national regulatory authorities, particularly in contexts where global safety data are extensive and pharmaceutical regulatory environments vary significantly. Given its basis in a regulatory environment that heavily relies on foreign safety data, the framework may be adapted for use in other countries with similar pharmacovigilance needs.
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.