ArticleDrug safety2026
When does Follow-up on Adverse Events Improve the Understanding of Medicine and Vaccine Safety? Insights from Global Expert Perspectives.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND
objectiveAdverse events (AEs) reported with medicines and vaccines form the foundation of pharmacovigilance (PV), enabling the detection, assessment, and prevention of drug-related risks. Initial AE reports often lack relevant clinical detail, limiting their utility. Follow-up is used to obtain additional information but is resource-intensive. Spontaneous reporting systems receive large volumes of reports and follow-up yields additional information in only a proportion of cases. Given these volumes and variable yield, it is important to define when follow-up is most likely to add value and when it is likely to be low-yield or futile. This study aimed to identify scenarios where follow-up on AEs meaningfully improves the understanding of medicine and vaccine safety, and to delineate circumstances when it may be less beneficial or futile.
methodsA Delphi based methodology was used to systematically gather expert consensus on scenarios in which follow-up of AE reports enhances the understanding of medicine and vaccine safety.
resultsData saturation was achieved after ten interviews. Panel members identified three primary scenarios in which follow-up adds value in PV: supporting causality assessment, strengthening signal detection and monitoring, and informing risk management and public health actions. They saw questionable or no value in follow up of well-characterised labelled events, cases in which the reporter cannot be contacted or did not consent to further contact, and settings where additional data were unlikely to alter benefit-risk.
conclusionThis study characterises expert perspectives on when follow-up activities are most likely to provide actionable value. Our results indicate that follow-up improves understanding when it resolves clinical uncertainty, but is inefficient when pursued without regard to impact, supporting a shift to proportionate, purpose-driven follow-up strategies for consistent and efficient use of resources including criteria for prioritisation and de-prioritisation.
Identifiers
42599564What 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.