ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2010
Clinical pharmacology consultation: a better answer to safety issues of drug therapy during pregnancy?
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical pharmacology consultations and their implementation in clinical decision making.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Clinical-Pharmacological Drug Information Center of Hannover Medical School: Update From a Tertiary Care University Hospital (2022-2024).Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026Article
- Clinical-pharmacological drug information center of Hannover Medical School: experiences and analysis from a tertiary care university hospital.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Knowledge and Practice of Pharmacy Professionals regarding the Risk of Medication Use during Pregnancy in Dessie Town, Northeast Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of pregnancy · 2019Article
- Potential Drug Interactions and Drug Risk during Pregnancy and Breastfeeding: An Observational Study in a Women's Health Intensive Care UnitRevista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2017Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposedrug safety classifications give a very basic estimation of risk and should only be used as general guideline when assessing risk of pregnancy-related drug exposure or planning treatment. We conducted a study to assess the strength of association between both the clinical pharmacologists' risk assessment and the FDA risk categorization, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
methodswe retrospectively reviewed records of 1,076 patients consecutively referred to the clinical pharmacology outpatient clinic for pregnancy-related drug exposure (2000-2008). Clinical pharmacologists' risk assessments were reviewed in relation to FDA drug categorization and available pregnancy outcomes.
resultsoverall, clinical pharmacologists' risk estimation was in agreement with the FDA risk categorization system in only 28% of consulted women, and in only 9% of women with high-risk exposure (FDA DX). Clinical pharmacologists' risk assessment confirming high-risk drug exposure had a better positive predictive value for adverse pregnancy outcomes than the FDA DX categorization (25% vs 14% respectively), while the negative predictive values were similar (92% vs 94% respectively). Clinical pharmacologists' risk assessment was a better predictor of adverse pregnancy outcomes compared with FDA risk categorization (OR 2.11 [95%CI 1.5-3.1; p < 0.001] vs OR 1.52 [95%CI 1.1-2.1; p = 0.014] respectively).
conclusionsadditional evaluation beyond the FDA drug classification is essential for safer and more rational drug use in pregnancy. Clinical pharmacologists who have undergone rigorous medical training are ideally placed to consult on administration of medicines in pregnant women, thus making the prescribing of treatments in that patient category substantially safer and more rational.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20644922What 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.