Patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a review of published literature and international experience
Article first published online: 12 SEP 2006
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Volume 63, Issue 2, pages 148–156, February 2007
How to Cite
Blenkinsopp, A., Wilkie, P., Wang, M. and Routledge, P. A. (2007), Patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a review of published literature and international experience. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 63: 148–156. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02746.x
- Issue published online: 12 SEP 2006
- Article first published online: 12 SEP 2006
- Received 18 February 2006Accepted 1 June 2006Published OnlineEarly12 September 2006
- adverse drug reactions (ADRs);
- side effects
To synthesize data from published studies and international experience to identify evidence of potential benefits and drawbacks of direct patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) by patients.
Structured search of MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO supplemented by internet searches and requests for information to key contacts.
Seven studies (eight papers) were included in the review. None of the studies concerned spontaneous reporting by patients. Information on patient reporting systems was obtained for six countries, with summary data reported by four. Patient reports identified possible new ADRs that had not previously been reported by health professionals. The quality of patient reports appears to be similar to that of health professional reports. There is some evidence that patients report an ADR when they consider their health professional has not paid attention to their concerns. Patient reports may, at least initially, be more time consuming to process.
Overall, the evidence indicates that patient reporting of suspected ADRs has more potential benefits than drawbacks. Evaluation of patient reporting systems is needed to provide further evidence.