Skip to main content

Under-Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions

A Systematic Review

Abstract

The purpose of this review was to estimate the extent of under-reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to spontaneous reporting systems and to investigate whether there are differences between different types of ADRs. A systematic literature search was carried out to identify studies providing a numerical estimate of under-reporting. Studies were included regardless of the methodology used or the setting, e.g. hospital versus general practice. Estimates of under-reporting were either extracted directly from the published study or calculated from the study data. These were expressed as the percentage of ADRs detected from intensive data collection that were not reported to the relevant local, regional or national spontaneous reporting systems. The median under-reporting rate was calculated across all studies and within subcategories of studies using different methods or settings.

In total, 37 studies using a wide variety of surveillance methods were identified from 12 countries. These generated 43 numerical estimates of under-reporting. The median under-reporting rate across the 37 studies was 94% (interquartile range 82–98%). There was no significant difference in the median under-reporting rates calculated for general practice and hospital-based studies. Five of the ten general practice studies provided evidence of a higher median under-reporting rate for all ADRs compared with more serious or severe ADRs (95% and 80%, respectively). In comparison, for five of the eight hospital-based studies the median under-reporting rate for more serious or severe ADRs remained high (95%). The median under-reporting rate was lower for 19 studies investigating specific serious/severe ADR-drug combinations but was still high at 85%.

This systematic review provides evidence of significant and widespread under-reporting of ADRs to spontaneous reporting systems including serious or severe ADRs. Further work is required to assess the impact of under-reporting on public health decisions and the effects of initiatives to improve reporting such as internet reporting, pharmacist/nurse reporting and direct patient reporting as well as improved education and training of healthcare professionals.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV

References

  1. 1.

    Edwards I, Olsson S. WHO Programme -Global Monitoring. In: Mann RD, Andrews E, editors. Pharmacovigilance. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2002: 169–82

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Waller PC, Bahri P. Regulatory pharmacovigilance in the EU. In: Mann RD, Andrews E, editors. Pharmacovigilance. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2002: 183–94

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Griffin JP. Survey of spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting schemes in fifteen different countries. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1986; 22: 83S–100S

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kennedy D, Goldman S, Lillie R. Spontaneous reporting in the United States. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2000: 151–74

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Strom BL. Study designs available for pharmacoepidemiology studies. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2000: 17–29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Layton D, Key C, Shakir SAW, et al. Prolongation of the QT interval and cardiac arrhythmias associated with cisapride: limitations of the pharmacoepidemiological studies conducted and proposals for the future. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2003; 12%(1): 31–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Wiholm B-E, Olsson S, Moore N, Waller P. Spontaneous reporting systems outside the US. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2000: 175–92

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Fourrier A, Pere JC. Measurement of frequency in pharmacovigilance. In: Arme P, editor. Methodological approaches in pharmacoepidemiology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1993: 21–5

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Begaud B, Pere JC, Miremont G. Estimation of the denominator in spontaneous reporting. In: Arme P, editor. Methodological approaches in pharmacoepidemiology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1993: 51–70

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Haramburu F. Estimation of underreporting. In: Arme P, editor. Methodological approaches in pharmacoepidemiology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1993: 39–50

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Begaud B, Moride Y, Tubert-Bitter P, et al. False-positives in spontaneous reporting: should we worry about them? Br J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 38: 401–4

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Mann RD, Andrews E, editors. Pharmacovigilance. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology, 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Arme P, editor. Methodological approaches in pharmacoepidemiology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Talbot J, Waller P, editors. Stephens’ detection of new adverse drug reactions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Council for International Organizations for Medical Sciences (CIOMS) Working Group III. Guidelines for preparing core clinical-safety information on drugs. Geneva: CIOMS, 1995

  17. 17.

    Heeley E, Riley J, Layton D, et al. Prescription-event monitoring and reporting of adverse drug reactions. Lancet 2001; 358: 1872–3

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Lewis MA, Kuhl-Habich D, von Rosen J. Drug use and adverse event monitoring in German children. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001; 39: 507–12

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Lacoste-Roussillon C, Pouyanne P, Haramburu F, et al. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in general practice: a prospective study. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001; 69: 458–62

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Alvarez RA, Carvajal A, Begaud B, et al. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: estimate based on a spontaneous reporting scheme and a sentinel system. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 54: 483–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Martin RM, Kapoor KV, Wilton LV, et al. Underreporting of suspected adverse drug reactions to newly marketed (“black triangle”) drugs in general practice: observational study. BMJ 1998; 317: 119–20

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Moride Y, Haramburu F, Requejo AA, et al. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions in general practice. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 43: 177–81

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Montastruc P, Damase MC, Lapeyre MM, et al. A prospective intensive study of adverse drug reactions in urban general practice. Clin Drug Invest 1995; 10: 117–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Fletcher AP. Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting vs event monitoring: a comparison. J R Soc Med 1991; 84: 341–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Lumley CE, Walker SR, Hall GC, et al. The under-reporting of adverse reactions seen in general practice. Pharm Med 1986; 1: 205–12

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Backstrom M, Mjorndal T, Dahlqvist R. Under-reporting of serious adverse drug reactions in Sweden. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2004; 13(7): 483–7

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Pouyanne P, Haramburu F, Imbs JL, et al. Admissions to hospital caused by adverse drug reactions: a cross-sectional incidence study: French pharmacovigilance centres. BMJ 2000; 320: 1036

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Imbs J, Pouyanne P, Haramburu F, et al. Adverse drug reactions: prevalence in French public hospitals. Therapie 1999; 52: 21–7

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Smith CC, Bennett PM, Pearce HM, et al. Adverse drug reactions in a hospital general medical unit meriting notification to the Committee on Safety of Medicines. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1996; 42: 423–9

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Maistrello I, Morgutti M, Maltempi M, et al. Adverse drug reactions in hospitalised patients: an operational procedure to improve reporting and investigate under reporting. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1994; 4: 101–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Chan T, Critchley J. Reporting of adverse drug reactions in relation to general medical admissions to a teaching hospital in Hong Kong. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1994; 3: 85–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Hallas J, Gram LF, Grodum E, et al. Drug related admissions to medical wards: a population based survey. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1992; 33: 61–8

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Classen D, Pestotnik S, Evans RS, et al. Computerised surveillance of adverse drug reactions in hospital practice. JAMA 1991; 266: 2847–51

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Dugue A, Bagheri H, Lapeyre-Mestre M, et al. Detection and incidence of muscular adverse drug reactions: a prospective analysis from laboratory to signals. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2004; 60: 285–92

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Mittman N, Knowles S, Gomez M, et al. Evaluation of the extent of under-reporting of serious adverse drug reactions: the case of toxic epidermal necrolysis. Drug Saf 2004; 27: 477–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    La Grenade L, Graham DJ, Nourjah P. Underreporting of hemorrhagic stroke associated with phenylpropanolamine. JAMA 2001; 286: 3081

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Bagheri H, Michel F, Lapeyre-Mestre M, et al. Detection and incidence of drug-induced liver injuries in hospital: a prospective analysis from laboratory signals. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 50: 479–84

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Skjeldestad FE, Amundsen T, Hoibraaten E. Reporting of adverse drug reactions to the Norwegian Drug Control Agency [in Norwegian]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2000; 120: 336–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Pumphrey RS, Davis S. Under-reporting of antibiotic anaphylaxis may put patients at risk. Lancet 1999; 353: 1157–8

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Kimmel SE, Sekeres MA, Berlin JA, et al. Adverse events after protamine administration in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass: risks and predictors of under-reporting. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 1–10

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Samuelsson E, Hagg S, Backstrom M, et al. Thrombosis caused by oral contraceptives: underreporting to the adverse effects registry [in Swedish]. Lakartidningen 1996; 93: 3117–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Prevots DR, Sutter RW, Strebel PM, et al. Completeness of reporting for paralytic poliomyelitis, United States, 1980 through 1991: implications for estimating the risk of vaccineassociated disease. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1994; 148: 479–85

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Arneborn P, Palmbled J. Drug-induced neutropenia a survey for Stockholm 1973-1978. Acta Med Scand 1982; 212: 289–92

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Bottiger M, Romanus V, de Verdier C, et al. Osteitis and other complications caused by generalised BCGitis: experience in Sweden. Acta Paediatr Scand 1982; 71: 471–8

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Inman W-HW. Study of fatal bone marrow depression with special reference to phenylbutazone and oxyphenbutazone. BMJ 1977; 1: 1500–5

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Bottiger L, Westerholm B. Drug-induced blood dyscrasias in Sweden. BMJ 1973; 3: 339–43

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Inman W-HW, Vessey MP. Investigation of deaths from pulmonary, coronary and cerebral thrombosis and embolism in women of childbearing age. BMJ 1968; 2: 193–9

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    in’T Veld BA, van der Linden PD, Feenstra J, et al. The function of a reporting system for suspected adverse drug reactions as risk indicator for Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis. Tijdschr Geneeskd 2000; 56: 1258–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Farrington P, Pugh S, Colville A, et al. A new method for active surveillance of adverse events from diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis and measles/mumps/rubella vaccines. Lancet 1995; 345: 567–9

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Begaud B, Chaslerie A, Haramburu F. Organization and results of drug vigilance in France [in French]. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 1994; 42: 416–23

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Torello IJ, Castillo F, Lainez MM, et al. Adverse reactions to drugs reported by the primary care physicians of Andalusia: analysis of underreporting. Aten Primaria 1994; 13: 307–11

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Rawlins MD. Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions: the data. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1988; 26: 1–5

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Inman W-HW, Adelstein AM. Rise and fall of asthma mortality in England and Wales in relation to pressurized aerosols. Lancet 1969; II: 279–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Belton KJ. Attitude survey of adverse drug-reaction reporting by health care professionals across the European Union. The European Pharmacovigilance Research Group. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 52: 423–7

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Eland IA, Belton KJ, van Grootheest AC, et al. Attitudinal survey of voluntary reporting of adverse drug reactions. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 48: 623–7

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Bateman DN, Sanders GLS, Rawlins MD. Attitudes to adverse drug reaction reporting in the Northern Region. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1992; 34: 421–6

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Pierfitte C, Begaud B, Lagnaoui R, et al. Is reporting rate a good predictor of risks associated with drugs? Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 47: 329–31

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Evans SJW, Waller PC, Davis S. Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001; 10: 483–6

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Begaud B, Tubert P, Haramburu F, et al. Comparing toxicity of drugs: use and misuse of spontaneous reporting. Post Marketing Surveillance 1991; 5(1): 69–76

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Tubert-Bitter P, Begaud B, Moride Y, et al. Comparing the toxicity of two drugs in the framework of spontaneous reporting: a confidence interval approach. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49(1): 121–3

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Van der Heijden PGM, Van Puijenbrock EP, Van Buuren S, et al. On the assessment of adverse drug reactions from spontaneous reporting systems: the influence of under-reporting on odds ratios. Stat Med 2002; 21: 2027–44

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Rogers AS, Israel E, Smith CR, et al. Physician knowledge, attitudes, and behavior related to reporting adverse drug events. Arch Intern Med 1988; 148: 1596–600

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Scott H, Rosenbaum S, Waters W, et al. Rhode Island physicians’ recognition and reporting of adverse drug reactions. R I Med J 1987; 70: 311–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Hasford J, Goettler M, Munter KH, et al. Physicians’ knowledge and attitudes regarding the spontaneous reporting system for adverse drug reactions. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 945–50

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Williams D, Feely J. Underreporting of adverse drug reactions: attitudes of Irish doctors. Ir J Med Sci 1999; 168: 257–61

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Backstrom M, Mjorndal T, Dahlqvist R, et al. Attitudes to reporting adverse drug reactions in northern Sweden. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56: 729–32

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A, Polonia J, et al. Physicians’ attitudes and adverse drug reaction reporting: a case-control study in Portugal. Drug Saf 2005; 28(9): 825–33.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    MCA launches web version of yellow card scheme. Pharmaceutical J 2002; 269: 631

  69. 69.

    Green CF, Mottram DR, Rowe PH, et al. Adverse drug reaction monitoring by United Kingdom hospital pharmacy departments: impact of the introduction of ‘yellow card’ reporting for pharmacists. Int J Pharm Pract 1999; 7: 238–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Backstrom M, Mjorndal T, Dahlqvist R. Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions by nurses. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002; 11: 647–50

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Cox A, Marriott J, Wilson K, et al. Adverse drug reaction teaching in UK undergraduate medical and pharmacy programmes. J Clin Pharm Ther 2004; 29: 31–5

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Centre for Pharmacy Postgraduate Education (CPPE). Adverse drug reactions (open learning pack) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cppe.man.ac.uk/Bookings/opendetails.asp?.topicID=ADR%2DD%2D02 [Accessed 2004 Aug 18]

  73. 73.

    Encheva D. Spontaneous reporting and continuing medical education. Uppsala Reports No. 25 April 2004 p10-11 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.who-umc.org/pdfs/UR25.pdf. WHO Uppsala Monitoring Centre, Sweden

  74. 74.

    Clarke A, Deeks J, Shakir S. An assessment of the publicly disseminated evidence of safety used in decisions to withdraw medicinal products from the UK and US markets. Drug Saf 2006; 29: 175–81

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Drug Safety Research Unit (DSRU) is a registered independent charity (No. 327206) associated with the University of Portsmouth. The DSRU receives donations and grants from pharmaceutical companies; however, the companies have no control on the conduct or publication of its studies.

This systematic review was not externally funded. Lorna Hazell has no conflicts of interest with regard to this review. Dr Shakir has provided consultancies and received lecturing fees from pharmaceutical companies but none of these are related to this review.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lorna Hazell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hazell, L., Shakir, S.A. Under-Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions. Drug-Safety 29, 385–396 (2006). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200629050-00003

Download citation

Keywords

  • Spontaneous Reporting
  • Selective Reporting
  • Spontaneous Reporting System
  • Proportional Reporting Ratio
  • Public Health Decision