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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Cites
PRISMA-P Group, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 · Cited by 26,223
Cited by
Raschi, E., Mazzarella, A., Antonazzo, I. C., Bendinelli, N., Forcesi, E., Tuccori, M., Moretti, U., Poluzzi, E., & De Ponti, F. (2019) · Targeted Oncology · doi:10.1007/s11523-019-00632-w · Cited by 101
Anjum, R. L., Price, C., & Rocca, E. (2025) · Social Epistemology · doi:10.1080/02691728.2024.2400079 · Cited by 3
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.