ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2007
Comparative assessment of four drug interaction compendia.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
72 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Drug-drug interactions between COVID-19 treatments and antipsychotics drugs: integrated evidence from 4 databases and a systematic review.Psychopharmacology · 2021Pooled it
- A systematic assessment of the availability and clinical drug information coverage of machine-readable clinical drug data sources for building knowledge translation products.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018Pooled it
- Concurrent use of alcohol interactive medications and alcohol in older adults: a systematic review of prevalence and associated adverse outcomes.BMC geriatrics · 2017Pooled it
- Prevalence of statin-drug interactions in older people: a systematic review.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Pooled it
- Drug interaction databases in medical literature: transparency of ownership, funding, classification algorithms, level of documentation, and staff qualifications. A systematic review.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2015Pooled it
- Drug-drug interactions in inpatient and outpatient settings in Iran: a systematic review of the literature.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2014Pooled it
- Frequency of Clinically Relevant Drug-Drug Interactions Between Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors and Proton Pump Inhibitors in Patients With Cancer Using Real-World Data.Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology · 2026Observational
- Contraindicated drug-drug interactions and associated adverse drug reactions in an observational cohort study of 4543 paediatric hospitalized patients.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Observational
- Drug-Drug Interaction Signals for Major Bleeding in Nursing Home Residents: High-Throughput Screening of Clopidogrel and Oral Anticoagulants.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026Article
- Screening for Potential Drug-Drug Interactions in Patients Receiving Anticoagulant Therapy: A Comparison of Three Drug Interaction Databases for Consistency in Severity Rating, Evidence Classification, and Clinical Management.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Standardizing and Comparing Management Recommendations for Potential Drug-Drug Interactions Across Different Interaction Checkers.Drug safety · 2026Article
- Potential Drug-Drug Interactions in Critically Ill Neonates: Association With Clinical Outcomes in a Prospective Cohort.Critical care research and practice · 2026Article
- Discordance in Drug-Drug Interaction Alerts for Antidotes: Comparative Analysis of Electronic Databases and Interpretive Insights from AI Tools.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Article
- Potential inappropriate medications and drug-drug interactions in adverse drug reactions in the elderly: a retrospective study in a pharmacovigilance database.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- A comparison of five different drug-drug interaction checkers for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Agreement of Different Drug-Drug Interaction Checkers for Proton Pump Inhibitors.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Article
- An Assessment of Different Decision Support Software from the Perspective of Potential Drug-Drug Interactions in Patients with Chronic Kidney Diseases.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Drug-drug interaction perpetrators of oxycodone in patients with cancer: frequency and clinical relevance.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2024Article
- Patients with dementia: prevalence and type of drug-drug interactions.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo assess the consistency of inclusion and grading of major drug interactions for 50 drugs in four leading international drug interaction compendia. METHODS Four international drug interaction compendia were compared: the drug interactions appendix of the British National Formulary, the interaction supplement in the French drug compendium Vidal, and two US drug interaction compendia, Drug Interaction Facts and the Micromedex (Drug-Reax) program. Major interactions were defined as potentially hazardous in BNF or with the warning 'contraindication' or 'avoid' in Vidal or with the significance grading 1 or 2 in DIF. Major interactions for a list of 50 drugs were searched in all four compendia.
resultsA total of 1264 interactions meeting the inclusion criteria were identified for these 50 drugs. After deletion of 169 duplicates, 1095 interactions were included in the analysis. Of the drug interactions classified as major in any one compendium between 14% and 44% were not listed in the other compendia. The grading systems used for the severity and the quality of the supporting evidence in Micromedex and DIF were inconsistent.
conclusionsThere is a lack of consistency in the inclusion and grading of drug interactions of major significance for 50 drugs across the four drug compendia examined. This may reflect the lack of standardization of the terminology used to classify drug interactions and the lack of good epidemiological evidence on which to base the assessment of the clinical relevance of drug interactions.
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.