Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42366848›Full record

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.

Tommy Emil Dzus, Johaina Sarrage, Hilde Samdal, François Montastruc, Elena Rocca

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Tommy Emil DzusFaculty of Health Sciences, Institute for Natural Science and Health, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-8761-6623
Johaina SarrageFaculty of Health Sciences, Institute for Natural Science and Health, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Hilde SamdalNorwegian Medical Product Agency, Oslo, Norway.
François MontastrucDepartment of Medical and Clinical Pharmacology, Centre of Pharmacovigilance and Pharmacoepidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Toulouse University Hospital (CHU), Toulouse, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7056-8126
Elena RoccaFaculty of Health Sciences, Institute for Natural Science and Health, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5222-0238

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsCOVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesHealth PersonnelAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwayPharmacovigilanceRegistriesVaccinationCOVID-19 Vaccinescausality assessmentCOVID‐19duplicate reportspaired analysispharmacovigilancevaccine surveillance

Identifiers

PMID42366848
PMCPMC13619059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.