Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19694737›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2009

Frequency and nature of drug-drug interactions in a Dutch university hospital.

Jeannette E F Zwart-van Rijkom, Esther V Uijtendaal, Maarten J ten Berg, Wouter W van Solinge, Antoine C G Egberts

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 121 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Adherence to drug-drug interaction alerts in high-risk patients: a trial of context-enhanced alerting.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2013
    Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jeannette E F Zwart-van RijkomDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, D00218, University Medical Centre Utrecht, PO Box 85500, Utrecht 3508 GA, The Netherlands. jzwart2@umcutrecht.nl
Esther V Uijtendaal
Maarten J ten Berg
Wouter W van Solinge
Antoine C G Egberts
Utrecht University · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimDrug-drug interactions (DDIs) may lead to often preventable adverse drug events and health damage. Especially within hospitals, this might be an important factor, as patients are severely ill and multiple medications may be prescribed simultaneously. The objective of this study was to measure the frequency and nature of DDI alerts in a Dutch university hospital.

methodsAll patients hospitalized in the University Medical Centre Utrecht in 2006 who were prescribed at least one medication were included. The frequency of DDIs was calculated as: (i) the percentage of patients experiencing at least one DDI, and (ii) the percentage of prescriptions generating a DDI alert. Based on the national professional guideline, DDIs were classified into categories of potential clinical outcome, management advice, clinical relevance (A-F) and available evidence (0-4).

resultsOf the 21 277 admissions included, 5909 (27.8%) encountered at least one DDI. Overall, the prescribing physician received a DDI alert in 9.6% of all prescriptions. The most frequently occurring potential clinical consequence of the DDIs was an increased risk of side-effects such as increased bleeding risk (22.0%), hypotension (14.9%), nephrotoxicity (12.6%) and electrolyte disturbances (10.5%). Almost half (48.6%) of the DDIs could be managed by monitoring laboratory values.

conclusionsComputerized DDI alerts may be a useful tool to prevent adverse drug events within hospitals, but they may also result in 'alert fatigue'. The specificity of alerts could significantly improve by the use of more sophisticated clinical decision support systems taking into account, for example, laboratory values.

Indexed as

Drug InteractionsAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsDrug PrescriptionsFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleMedication ErrorsNetherlandsPharmaceutical ServicesPractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'Reminder SystemsRisk Management

Identifiers

PMID19694737
PMCPMC2767281
OpenAlexW4304182209

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.