Author
Listed:
- Muhammad Akhtar Abbas Khan
- Jude Nwokike
- Asim Rauf
- Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar
Abstract
Background: Three key tools are currently available for assessing pharmacovigilance systems at the national level: the Indicator-Based Pharmacovigilance Assessment Tool (IPAT), the World Health Organization (WHO) Pharmacovigilance Indicators, and the Vigilance Module of the WHO Global Benchmarking Tool (GBT). These instruments are designed to evaluate the functionality and performance of national regulatory authorities within the context of their respective pharmacovigilance systems. Objectives: This study aims to identify, analyze, and compare the core characteristics and operational features of these pharmacovigilance assessment tools to better understand their scope, application, and limitations. Methodology: A structured document analysis was conducted on the three identified tools. The content was systematically reviewed, categorized, and synthesized to facilitate a comparative evaluation of its design, focus areas, and assessment criteria. Results: The analysis revealed that the available tools encompass a broad spectrum of indicators targeting different dimensions of pharmacovigilance systems, such as infrastructure, processes, and outcomes. However, exclusive reliance on a single tool may offer a limited perspective, potentially overlooking critical components of a national pharmacovigilance framework. Conclusion: This study underscores the heterogeneity of existing pharmacovigilance assessment tools and emphasizes the importance of context-specific adaptation. A tailored approach, involving the strategic selection or integration of tools, is recommended to ensure a comprehensive and accurate evaluation of national pharmacovigilance systems.
Suggested Citation
Muhammad Akhtar Abbas Khan & Jude Nwokike & Asim Rauf & Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar, 2025.
"A comparative analysis of three pharmacovigilance system assessment tools,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(7), pages 1-12, July.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0327363
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0327363
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0327363. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.