Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10718781›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2000

Dutch hospital drug formularies: pharmacotherapeutic variation and conservatism, but concurrence with national pharmacotherapeutic guidelines.

R Fijn, S A Engels, J R Brouwers, R J Knaap, L T De Jong-Van den Berg

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

R FijnGroningen University Institute for Drug Exploration (GUIDE), University of Groningen, University Centre for Pharmacy, Department of Pharmaceutical Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, Groningen.
S A Engels
J R Brouwers
R J Knaap
L T De Jong-Van den Berg
University of Groningen · NLMinistry of Health Welfare and Sport · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThis research examines current hospital drug formularies (HDFs) of all Dutch general hospitals. It assesses the extent to which they recommend the same drugs, the breadth of their coverage in terms of therapeutic areas, drug groups incorporated and individuals drugs included, and their extent of conservatism by considering the year of introduction of the drugs included within groups. Furthermore, it considers the extent to which their recommendations concur and comply with those of national pharmacotherapeutic guidelines and the WHO Essential Drugs List (EDL).

methodsSeventy-eight (81%) out of all 96 current Dutch HDFs were received of which 62 were suitable for study. Differences between HDFs and eventual associations with hospital characteristics were researched by statistical testing and case-control studies. To evaluate HDFs' concurrence with national guidelines and compliance with the WHO EDL, nine drug groups were studied in detail: benzodiazepines, calcium channel blockers, beta-adrenoceptor blocking agents, ACE-inhibitors, angiotensin-II inhibitors, NSAIDs, H2-receptor antagonists, 5HT3-antagonists, and H+-pump inhibitors. Concurrence and compliance with national guidelines and the WHO EDL was defined as inclusion of recommended drugs. Non-concurrence was defined as inclusion of nonrecommended drugs.

resultsThe total number of indications addressed and drug groups incorporated within HDFs varied from 28 to 72 (median 56) and from 30 to 123 (median 97), respectively. The total number of individual drug entities (pharmacological substances) included ranged from 239 to 658 (median 430) and the total number of drug products, including all different dosage forms, from 412 to 1121 (median 655). Within drug groups, drug entities first marketed were most frequently included. Teaching hospitals were most likely to include recently marketed drugs. Depending on the drug group, HDFs' concurrence and compliance with national guidelines and the WHO EDL ranged from 35% to 100%.

conclusionsFindings indicate that Dutch HDFs are rather uniform in the indications addressed and the drug groups incorporated. However, the number of individual drug entities and drug products included within groups varies considerably. Furthermore, Dutch HDFs are considered rather conservative, as older drugs are favoured over more recent drugs. Generally, with some drug exceptions, Dutch HDFs concur and comply with recommendations in national pharmacotherapeutic guidelines and with the WHO EDL over 90%.

Indexed as

Chemistry, PharmaceuticalDrug TherapyDrug UtilizationFormularies, Hospital as TopicGuideline AdherenceHospitals, GeneralHumansNetherlandsPharmacopoeias as Topic

Identifiers

PMID10718781
PMCPMC2014915
OpenAlexW2122388533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.