Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42701740›Full record

ArticleBioinformation2026

Materiovigilance: Knowledge, attitude, practice among healthcare professionals in India.

Hemlata Verma, Prerna Jasmine Kerketta, Shilpa Jain, Mahendra Soni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformation, 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

4 authors.

Hemlata VermaDepartment of Pharmacology, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Prerna Jasmine KerkettaDepartment of Pharmacology, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Shilpa JainDepartment of Pharmacology, People's College of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, India.
Mahendra SoniDepartment of Hospital Administration, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite 636 Medical Device Monitoring Centers (MDMCs) in India, post-marketing vigilance for medical devices remains less developed than for drugs. An institutional survey among health care professionals (HCPs) including consultants, physicians, nurses and midwives was conducted using a pre-validated electronic questionnaire. Among 107 respondents (36% response rate), 58% had heard of 'materiovigilance', 47.6% knew the MDAE reporting pathway and 14.9% had reported adverse events. Majority 96.2% agreed that MDAE reporting enhances patient safety and 89.2% supported its inclusion in undergraduate medical curricula. HCPs exhibited a positive attitude towards materiovigilance but knowledge gaps and suboptimal reporting persist; training and stronger reporting systems can promote materiovigilance activities and improve patient safety.

Indexed as

cross-sectional studyhealth care professionalsMedical devicepatient safetytertiary care center

Identifiers

PMID42701740
PMCPMC13545907

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.