ArticleDrug safety2026
Enhancing Disease Surveillance and Pharmacovigilance Practices for RTS,S/AS01
Article in Drug 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rollout of new vaccines in low- and middle-income countries often faces significant challenges due to underdeveloped disease surveillance and pharmacovigilance practices for monitoring vaccine safety and effectiveness. In 2019, RTS,S/AS01
objectiveHere, we describe the capacity-building experience, including targeted training strategies and accompanying paper-based and digital tools developed to improve detection, diagnosis, and reporting of adverse events of special interest (AESIs) and adverse events following immunization (AEFIs). We summarize the impact of the initiative, challenges, and actions taken, and share lessons learned to guide future capacity-building initiatives in low- and middle-income countries.
methodsThe initiative included tailored, frequent, 2-day in-person training sessions for both medical and non-medical professionals in hospital and community settings, complemented by online courses, practical job aids, a tele-expertise platform, and a mobile alert system to improve adverse event reporting.
resultsThe initiative reached approximately 5000 community healthcare professionals and 1000 study staff. Knowledge assessments after the trainings indicated marked improvements, with scores increasing from 41% to 72% among medical professionals and from 38% to 68% among non-medical professionals after initial training; similar gains were observed after refresher training (45% to 74% and 45% to 72%, respectively). Across the three countries involved in the pilot implementation, 90% of reported AESIs and AEFIs were documented through the phase IV studies. Trainings were generally well received; however, digital tools were underutilized due to the perceived operational burden and user preferences. The repeated use of similar training materials across sessions required the introduction of new clinical cases and knowledge quizzes to maintain participant engagement. In addition, resource limitations, including intermittent connectivity and logistical constraints, posed practical challenges.
conclusionsThis experience highlights the importance of tailored training, flexibility, collaboration, and prior alignment on integrating new tools into existing procedures. Overall, our approach may offer valuable insights for future pharmacovigilance capacity-building efforts in low- and middle-income countries to support safer vaccine rollout. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY:
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.