The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Under‐reporting of adverse drug reactions in general practice
Open accessAbstract
Aims In post‐marketing setting, spontaneous reporting by physicians is a mode of surveillance of adverse effects associated with drug use. The objective of this study was to quantitatively assess under‐reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in general practice. Methods A random sample of 100 general practitioners (GPs) practising in the region of the Bordeaux pharmacovigilance centre were surveyed to obtain data on adverse effects observed. Overall, 81 GPs agreed to record during 3 non‐consecutive working days any effect they believed to be associated with drug use. The types of effects, regardless of their seriousness and labelling, and the drugs suspected were characterized and compared to spontaneous reports received from GPs by the Bordeaux pharmacovigilance centre during the reference period. Results The average number of ADRs observed per day per GP was 1.99. The estimate of the under‐reporting coefficient (U) was 24 433 (95% confidence interval: 20 702–28 837) which indicates that, as a whole, GPs might be expected to report only 1 out of every 24 433 ADRs to the pharmacovigilance centre. Under‐reporting was lowest for serious and unlabelled effects (U=4610; 95%CI: 2514–8454) and for drugs marketed recently (U=12 802; 95% CI: 8174–20 050). Conclusions Adverse effects due to drugs are part of GPs routine activities. According to the observed trend in under‐reporting, there appears to be a selection process which indicates that spontaneous reporting in general practice is not conducive to an exhaustive description of the safety profile of a drug. However, our findings are consistent with greater efficacy of spontaneous reporting in detecting serious and unlabelled effect.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Aging Biology and Geriatric Clinical Pharmacology
McLean, A. J., & Le Couteur, D. G. (2004) · Pharmacological Reviews · doi:10.1124/pr.56.2.4 · Cited by 771
Substandard medicines in resource‐poor settings: a problem that can no longer be ignored
Caudron, J. ‐., Ford, N., Henkens, M., Macé, C., Kiddle‐Monroe, R., & Pinel, J. (2008) · Tropical Medicine & International Health · doi:10.1111/j.1365-3156.2008.02106.x · Cited by 332
Figueiras, A., Herdeiro, M. T., Polónia, J., & Gestal-Otero, J. J. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.296.9.1086 · Cited by 204
For the Drug Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN), Vega, M., Verma, M., Beswick, D., Bey, S., Hossack, J., Merriman, N., Shah, A., & Navarro, V. (2017) · Drug Safety · doi:10.1007/s40264-017-0547-9 · Cited by 120
Metadata
- Authors
- Moride, Y., Haramburu, F., Requejo, A. A., & Bégaud, B.
- Venue
- British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1997-02
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 177-181
- ISSN
- 0306-5251 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2125
- OpenAlex
- W2115461720
- Cited by
- 201
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Under‐reporting of adverse drug reactions in general practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2125.1997.05417.x
- The paper
- Moride, Y., Haramburu, F., Requejo, A. A., & Bégaud, B. (1997). Under‐reporting of adverse drug reactions in general practice. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2125.1997.05417.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.