<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>56(5)</volume><submitter>Garashi HY</submitter><funding>Kuwait Ministry of Health</funding><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>In the context of the growth of pharmacovigilance (PV) among developing countries, this systematic review aims to synthesise current research evaluating developing countries' PV systems' performance.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus and Web of Science were searched for peer-reviewed studies published in English between 2012 and 2021. Reference lists of included studies were screened. Included studies were quality assessed using Hawker et al.'s nine-item checklist; data were extracted using the WHO PV indicators checklist. Scores were assigned to each group of indicators and used to compare countries' PV performance.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Twenty-one unique studies from 51 countries were included. Of a total possible quality score of 36, most studies were rated medium </pubmed_abstract><journal>Therapeutic innovation &amp; regulatory science</journal><pagination>717-743</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9356965</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>A Systematic Review of Pharmacovigilance Systems in Developing Countries Using the WHO Pharmacovigilance Indicators.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC9356965</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Garashi HY</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Steinke DT</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Schafheutle EI</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>A Systematic Review of Pharmacovigilance Systems in Developing Countries Using the WHO Pharmacovigilance Indicators.</name><description>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>In the context of the growth of pharmacovigilance (PV) among developing countries, this systematic review aims to synthesise current research evaluating developing countries' PV systems' performance.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus and Web of Science were searched for peer-reviewed studies published in English between 2012 and 2021. Reference lists of included studies were screened. Included studies were quality assessed using Hawker et al.'s nine-item checklist; data were extracted using the WHO PV indicators checklist. Scores were assigned to each group of indicators and used to compare countries' PV performance.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Twenty-one unique studies from 51 countries were included. Of a total possible quality score of 36, most studies were rated medium </description><dates><release>2022-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2022 Sep</publication><modification>2026-03-31T11:23:16.561Z</modification><creation>2025-02-19T02:27:08.967Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC9356965</accession><cross_references><pubmed>35657484</pubmed><doi>10.1007/s43441-022-00415-y</doi></cross_references></HashMap>