{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02199074074074074, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.090163934426229, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[The need for 'postmarketing surveillance'].

Postmarketing surveillance of medicines includes two activities: pharmacovigilance and pharmaco-epidemiology. Despite the importance of postmarketing surveillance, too few surveillance studies are performed. The studies carried out by the pharmaceutical industry predominantly consist of 'seeding trials': offering prescribing physicians financial rewards if they prescribe a particular product, thus trying to change the prescription habits. The results of such trials are scientifically worthless. These activities cast a shadow on sincere postmarketing surveillance. A recent nationwide cohort study by the Inspectorate for Health Care on mortality in users of ibopamine demonstrates that Dutch medical doctors and pharmacists are very co-operative if further studying of a particular adverse reaction is warranted.