Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18095742›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2008

Intelligent risk communication: can it be improved?

Andrzej Czarnecki

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2008. 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
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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, 12 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

1 author.

Andrzej CzarneckiGlobal Patient Safety, Lilly Research Centre, Erlwood Manor, UK. czarnecki_andrzej@lilly.com

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Every year, regulators and scientists from academia and industry invest considerable time and effort into drug development, the assessment of safety, and subsequent risk-benefit communication. The observation of everyday medical practice, lay press releases and drug information indicates that all these efforts do not do justice to the work and effort invested. Risk communication is a complex scientific activity, which, when done properly, benefits patients, and when done poorly, may lead to harm. There is much misunderstanding and confusion even between professionals in communicating risk-benefit information, as the association of risk with drug treatment is a difficult concept to accept. It is apparent that the concept of intelligent risk-benefit communication has to be developed extensively on many levels and with the co-operation of everyone involved (patients, physicians, regulators, scientists, journalists, lawyers and the government). This article addresses some key aspects of dealing with the risks associated with drug treatment in everyday practice, as consideration of these risks may be of benefit to all concerned in the future.

Indexed as

CommunicationDrug DesignDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsDrug TherapyHumansInformation DisseminationInterprofessional RelationsRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID18095742
OpenAlexW118852931

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.