ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2004
Risk:benefit assessment of old medicines.
Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gemifloxacin, a fluoroquinolone antimicrobial drug, inhibits migration and invasion of human colon cancer cells.BioMed research international · 2013Article
- The RAAS in the pathogenesis and treatment of diabetic nephropathy.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Any meaningful discussion about the present value of old drugs requires appropriate comparisons with new drugs. While there is noisy propaganda claiming the superiority of new drugs, the evidence supporting these claims is often scanty and poor. Therefore, the database utilizable to evaluate old and new drugs is incomplete and fragile. There are several reasons, including the poor dossiers presented for the approval of new drugs, the lack of comparisons aimed at showing superiority of new drugs, the bias frequently involved in clinical trials and the conflict of interests. This brief discussion reviews these questions and gives some examples by comparing diuretics and new antihypertensive agents, ticlopidine and clopidogrel, and atypical and classical antipsychotic agents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.