ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Comparative analysis of the characteristics and trends of adverse drug reaction reports from patients in Japan and the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiotoxicity of macrolide antibiotics: a pharmacovigilance study integrating FAERS and JADER databases.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of the characteristics and trends of adverse drug reaction reports from patients in Japan and the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Global patterns and trends in spontaneous reporting systems: VigiBase, FAERS, VAERS, and JADER.Frontiers in drug safety and regulation · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsSpontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADR) after a product has reached the market is essential for drug safety. This study analysed patient ADR reports and compared them with reports from the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report (JADER) database to identify differences and trends.
methodsADR reports from the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency website, including patient reports from March 2019 to March 2024, and JADER reports from January 2019 to March 2024, were utilized. Information on demographics, drugs, ADR types and outcomes was analysed. Frequencies and comparisons between the two reporting groups were performed.
resultsA total of 2913 patient reports and 343 894 JADER reports were analysed. Patients were often younger (30-50 years) and mostly female, whereas JADER reports included older patients (60-80 years) and mostly male. Patients reported subjective symptoms, such as fatigue and headache, often associated with drugs targeting the central nervous system. In contrast, JADER reports focused on serious conditions, such as interstitial lung disease and pneumonia, which are commonly associated with anticancer drugs. Patient and professional ADR reports differed in focus. Patients highlighted quality-of-life-related symptoms, whereas professionals reported more serious medical conditions. Differences in demographics and reporting methods indicate that these systems are complementary. Offering more reporting options, such as telephone-based submissions, can make the system more inclusive.
conclusionsThe study highlights how patient ADR reports provide valuable insights into drug safety. Although differences exist, patient and professional reports improve monitoring after drug approval.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.