ArticleDaru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences2026
Important potential risks not reflected in Japanese drug labeling: implications for risk management plan termination.
Article in Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Important missing information in Japan's risk management plans: a cross-sectional analysis after a decade of implementation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRisk management plans (RMPs) support lifecycle management of drug-related risks. In Japan, however, their use in clinical practice remains limited, and healthcare professionals often rely on the package insert for safety information. After RMP termination at re-examination, healthcare professionals may no longer readily identify unresolved risks absent from the package insert through either the package insert or the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) RMP source.
objectivesWe investigated the extent to which important potential risks in RMPs are reflected in the package insert and considered the implications of RMP termination when such risks remain undocumented.
methodsWe analyzed RMPs publicly available as of May 2023 using data from the PMDA website. For each important potential risk, we examined whether it was documented in the package insert and summarized the results descriptively by risk type.
resultsAmong 772 important potential risks in 330 RMPs, 134 (17.4%) were not documented in the package insert. Non-documentation proportions were relatively high for "Infections and infestations" (32.7%), "Gastrointestinal disorders" (32.4%), and "Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)" (28.4%), whereas a relatively low proportion was observed for "Vascular disorders" (2.3%).
conclusionSome important potential risks in active Japanese RMPs were not documented in the package insert. This may create gaps in risk communication after RMP termination, although clinical outcomes and patient harm were not assessed. Allowing RMP continuation beyond re-examination when necessary may help maintain awareness of unresolved safety concerns.
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.