ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Do consumers and healthcare professionals report the same adverse event differently? A paired analysis of duplicate vaccine safety reports in Norway.
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. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to compare how Norwegian healthcare professionals (HCPs) and consumers reported the same adverse event (AE) following immunization with vaccines against COVID-19 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, we aimed to compare the extent to which HCPs and consumers reported information relevant for assessing the causal relationship between the AE and the suspected COVID-19 vaccine, with a particular focus on the type of unstructured information provided by each group.
methodsVerified duplicate pairs of AE reports following COVID-19 vaccination were extracted from the Norwegian Adverse Drug Reaction Registry. Free-text case narratives were analysed using thematic analysis to categorize types of unstructured information. A scoring system quantified completeness of causality-relevant information, with final scores categorized into levels of completeness. Time intervals from AE onset to reporting were also calculated.
resultsNineteen categories of unstructured information were identified. HCPs more often provided vaccine dose details, clinical observations, test results and causality reflections, while consumers more often described dietary supplements, life consequences and subjective AE explanations (p < .05). In 85% of 127 duplicate pairs, HCPs and consumers provided at least 50% complementary information in free-text narratives. Both groups provided similar levels of causality-relevant information (p = .774). HCPs reported earlier than consumers (p < .05).
conclusionHCPs and consumers provided highly complementary unstructured information and comparable completeness for causality assessment. Collaboration between these groups should be encouraged, particularly in public health and clinical emergencies like epidemics and in situations of high uncertainty.
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.