ArticleBioinformation2026
Comparison of patient-reported adverse drug reactions with pharmacovigilance records in gastrointestinal disorders.
Article in Bioinformation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are frequently under-recognized in patients with gastrointestinal disorders. Differences may exist between patient-reported experiences and formal pharmacovigilance records. Therefore, it is of interest to evaluate self-reported ADRs among 265 adults receiving treatment for gastrointestinal conditions and compared findings with regional pharmacovigilance data from the same period. A structured and pretested survey collected demographic, clinical and ADR-related information. Overall, 51.7% reported at least one ADR, most commonly abdominal discomfort (27.2%), nausea (21.9%) and headache (17.4%). Awareness of formal ADR reporting systems was low, with only 38.5% having heard of such systems and 25.7% knowing how to report. Concordance between patient reports and pharmacovigilance data was high for gastrointestinal and central nervous system reactions but lower for severe and dermatological reactions. Female gender, higher education and poly-pharmacy were significantly associated with increased ADR reporting (p < 0.05). Thus, gaps in awareness of ADR reporting support integration of patient-reported outcomes into pharmacovigilance systems.
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.