ArticleBMC pharmacology & toxicology2026
Multinational pharmacovigilance assessment of drug-associated esophageal ulceration and perforation: evidence from FAERS, JADER, and Canada Vigilance.
Article in BMC pharmacology & toxicology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDrug-associated esophageal ulceration and perforation are uncommon but clinically serious adverse events. This study characterized post-marketing reporting patterns for these events across three spontaneous reporting systems.
methodsReports from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database (JADER), and Canada Vigilance from 2004 to 2025 were analyzed using predefined Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) preferred terms. Disproportionality was assessed using the reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio (PRR), Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN), and multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS). In FAERS, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression followed by multivariable logistic regression was used for exploratory signal prioritization. Reported time-to-onset was summarized for drug-report records with valid therapy start and event onset dates.
resultsFAERS contained 8,061 reports meeting the prespecified composite case definition. Among the 50 most frequently reported FAERS primary-suspect drugs, the largest disproportionality estimates were observed for doxycycline (ROR 41.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 36.47-46.43), alendronic acid (ROR 21.45, 95% CI 19.14-24.04), and clindamycin (ROR 18.59, 95% CI 15.40-22.44). JADER and Canada Vigilance showed descriptively overlapping but heterogeneous reporting patterns. Reported time-to-onset was heterogeneous, with both short and long recorded intervals.
conclusionsThis multidatabase analysis identified prominent reporting signals for established pill-injury drugs and exploratory reporting patterns involving other drug categories. These findings are hypothesis-generating and should not be interpreted as estimates of incidence, comparative clinical risk, or causal effects.
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.