Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20107898›Full record

ArticlePharmacy world & science : PWS2010

Coping with changes in the Defined Daily Dose in a longitudinal drug consumption database.

Vera Vlahović-Palcevski, Monja Gantumur, Nives Radosević, Goran Palcevski, Robert Vander Stichele

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacy world & science : PWS, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Reply to Charra et al.: Global longitudinal assessment of 2019 changes in defined daily doses.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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.

Vera Vlahović-PalcevskiDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospital Rijeka, Kresimirova 42, Rijeka, 51000, Croatia. vvlahovic@inet.hr
Monja Gantumur
Nives Radosević
Goran Palcevski
Robert Vander Stichele

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo illustrate the best approach to accurate representation of temporal evolution of drug consumption, when confronted with changes over time in the Defined Daily Dose (DDD) measurement unit.

methodAs an example, drug consumption (2001-2005) at the University Hospital Rijeka was expressed with the corresponding DDD in each year; and with the DDD value of the last year of the observation time window. By visual appraisal, results with both methods were compared with the graph of drug consumption trends expressed in physical units (mg, IU, etc.).

resultsOf 20 drugs for which the DDD value has changed in the 5 year period, 5 were used in Rijeka hospital: erythropoietin parenteral, budesonide nasal spray, repaglinide oral, amoxicillin with clavulanic acid parenteral, and fentanyl transdermal. Graphs for individual drugs with the year by year method showed artificial jerks in the years proceeding the year of DDD change. Representation of total hospital consumption did not differ notably with the two methods.

conclusionDrug consumption data should be calculated with the latest DDD value in the time window. The policy of the World Health Organisation to keep changes to the system of DDD to a minimum should be continued.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualCroatiaData CollectionDrug UtilizationHumansLongitudinal StudiesPrescription DrugsResearch DesignPrescription Drugs

Identifiers

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.