BMC Medicine
http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcmed/content
(Accessed 6 February 2016)

.
Research article
Post-marketing withdrawal of 462 medicinal products because of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review of the world literature
Igho J. Onakpoya, Carl J. Heneghan and Jeffrey K. Aronson
BMC Medicine 2016 14:10
Published on: 4 February 2016
Abstract
Background
There have been no studies of the patterns of post-marketing withdrawals of medicinal products to which adverse reactions have been attributed. We identified medicinal products that were withdrawn because of adverse drug reactions, examined the evidence to support such withdrawals, and explored the pattern of withdrawals across countries.
Methods
We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, the WHO’s database of drugs, the websites of drug regulatory authorities, and textbooks. We included medicinal products withdrawn between 1950 and 2014 and assessed the levels of evidence used in making withdrawal decisions using the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine.
Results
We identified 462 medicinal products that were withdrawn from the market between 1953 and 2013, the most common reason being hepatotoxicity. The supporting evidence in 72 % of cases consisted of anecdotal reports. Only 43 (9.34 %) drugs were withdrawn worldwide and 179 (39 %) were withdrawn in one country only. Withdrawal was significantly less likely in Africa than in other continents (Europe, the Americas, Asia, and Australasia and Oceania). The median interval between the first reported adverse reaction and the year of first withdrawal was 6 years (IQR, 1–15) and the interval did not consistently shorten over time.
Conclusion
There are discrepancies in the patterns of withdrawal of medicinal products from the market when adverse reactions are suspected, and withdrawals are inconsistent across countries. Greater co-ordination among drug regulatory authorities and increased transparency in reporting suspected adverse drug reactions would help improve current decision-making processes.

.

Research article
A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals
Biomedical journals are the main route for disseminating the results of health-related research. Despite this, their editors operate largely without formal training or certification. To our knowledge, no body of literature systematically identifying core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals exists. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a scoping review to determine what is known on the competency requirements for scientific editors of biomedical journals.
James Galipeau, Virginia Barbour, Patricia Baskin, Sally Bell-Syer, Kelly Cobey, Miranda Cumpston, Jon Deeks, Paul Garner, Harriet MacLehose, Larissa Shamseer, Sharon Straus, Peter Tugwell, Elizabeth Wager, Margaret Winker and David Moher
BMC Medicine 2016 14:16
Published on: 2 February 2016