Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 269

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The value of patient reporting to the pharmacovigilance system: a systematic review

Open access
Inácio, Pedro, Cavaco, Afonso, Airaksinen, Marja·2017·British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Abstract

Aims: Current trends in pharmacovigilance systems are veering towards patient involvement in spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The aim of the current systematic review was to identify what is known and what remains unknown with respect to patient reporting to pharmacovigilance systems. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Journals@Ovid and the Cochrane Library. Studies were included if they contained: (i) reviews about patient reporting; (ii) evaluation of patient reports to national or supranational pharmacovigilance authorities; (iii) a comparison between patient and healthcare professional (HCP) reports submitted to pharmacovigilance authorities; and (iv) surveys of patient experiences, opinions and awareness about reporting ADRs. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed according to principles of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). Results: A total of thirty four studies were included. Five of the studies were reviews (two of which systematic reviews), fourteen retrospective observational studies, nine surveys and six applied mixed research methods. Patient reporting has the advantages of bringing novel information about ADRs. It provides a more detailed description of ADRs, and reports about different drugs and system organ classes when compared with HCP reporting. In addition, patients describe the severity and impact of ADRs on daily life, complementing information derived from HCPs. Patient reporting is relatively rare in most countries. Conclusions: Patient reporting adds new information, and perspective about ADRs in a way otherwise unavailable. This can contribute to better decision‐making processes in regulatory activities. The present review identified gaps in knowledge that should be addressed to improve our understanding of the full potential and drawbacks of patient reporting.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bcp.13098

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 269

Metadata

Authors
Inácio, P., Cavaco, A., & Airaksinen, M.
Venue
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-10-12
Volume
83
Issue
2
Pages
227-246
ISSN
  • 0306-5251 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2125
OpenAlex
W2516356692
Cited by
269
References
1
FWCI
5.29
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: The value of patient reporting to the pharmacovigilance system: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/bcp.13098
The paper
Inácio, P., Cavaco, A., & Airaksinen, M. (2017). The value of patient reporting to the pharmacovigilance system: a systematic review. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.13098

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.