Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41480255›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in drug safety and regulation2025

Pharmacovigilance and bioethics: the importance of a neglected relationship.

Giuseppe Alvaro, Michael Müller, Richa Chhibber, Robert Fuentes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in drug safety and regulation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Giuseppe AlvaroInstitute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Freiburg, Germany.
Michael MüllerInstitute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Freiburg, Germany.
Richa ChhibberIndependent drug safety expert, London, United Kingdom.
Robert FuentesDrug InfoNomics, LLC, Sarasota, FL, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study examines the critical, yet often neglected, link between bioethics and pharmacovigilance-disciplines that collectively aim to ground drug therapies in robust evidence and respect for patient rights. Despite their shared mission, scholarly dialogue between these fields remains sparse. This gap is bridged by tracing their historical foundations and addressing key ethical challenges in pharmacovigilance through the lens of four core bioethical principles: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. For each principle, pivotal questions and illustrative examples are outlined, offering guidance on embedding ethical reasoning into pharmacovigilance practice. It is argued that while regulations, standard operating procedures, and digital tools are indispensable, they cannot alone resolve the ethical dilemmas posed by rapid scientific innovation, resource constraints, and global inequities, and they may reduce safety professionals to mere task executors. Consequently, it is imperative that alongside technical and regulatory progress, pharmacovigilance fosters the study and application of ethical principles in every aspect of its operation. This transformation will recast it from a purely technical function into an equitable guardian of public health, ensuring sound decision-making, promoting public trust, and delivering maximal benefit while upholding human dignity worldwide.

Indexed as

autonomybeneficencebioethicsdrug safetyjusticenon-maleficencepharmacovigilancepublic health

Identifiers

PMID41480255
PMCPMC12754728

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.