ArticleDrug, healthcare and patient safety2026
Quality and Timeliness of Pharmacovigilance Reporting in Malawi: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Individual Case Safety Reports.
Article in Drug, healthcare and patient safety, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Adverse events related to use of medicinal products are among the significant causes of morbidity and mortality. Quality of adverse event reports is essential for safety risk management. We therefore analyzed trends, timeliness and completeness of individual case safety reports (ICSRs) at a regional pharmacovigilance (PV) centre in Malawi. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study involving data extraction from ICSR reports that were submitted from 2017 to 2024. The data included patient demographics, adverse events, suspected products and reporter details. ICSR completeness was assessed using the vigiGrade Results: The PV centre received a total of 1,057 ICSRs during the targeted period. These included 940 (88.9%) ADR and 117 (11.1%) AEFI cases. Most of the ADRs were serious (56.1%, n=527) while most of the AEFIs were not serious (58.1%, n=68), p<0.001. Highest reporting rates were recorded in 2022. Most of the ADR cases were related to Isoniazid (16.6%, n=156), followed by tenofovir/lamivudine/dolutegravir (14.5%, n=136). For the AEFIs, most cases were related to pneumococcal conjugate (22.2%, n=26), followed by pentavalent vaccine (21.4%, n=25). The median vigiGrade score for the ADRs was 0.7 (95% CI: 0.7-0.9; IQR: 0.57-1). This was significantly lower (P<0.001) as compared to the AEFIs with a median score of 1 (95% CI: 1-1; IQR: 0.7 -1). There was no significant difference in transmission time between ADR and AEFI reports, p=0.106. The median duration for transmission of ADR reports was 19.5 days (95% CI: 17-21 days; IQR: 6-56 days), while the median time AEFI report transmission was 8 days (95% CI: 3-30.9 days; IQR: 1-156 days). Conclusion: The study highlights poor quality and delayed reporting of adverse events. This may hinder safety signal detection, proper regulatory decision making and compromise patient safety. Strengthening digital reporting mechanisms would enhance quality reporting and streamline timely data flow.
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.