ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2010
[Questionnaire surveying nephrologists on drug dose adjustment in patients with impaired kidney function].
Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Elimination of Doripenem during Dialysis and Pharmacokinetic Evaluation of Posthemodialysis Dosing for Patients Undergoing Intermittent Renal Replacement Therapy.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2018Trial
- Medical Students' and Internal Medicine Trainees' Knowledge of Drug Prescribing Recommendations in Older Patients with Impaired Kidney Function.Clinical interventions in aging · 2020Article
- [Antibiotic dosing for renal function disorders and continuous renal replacement therapy].Der Anaesthesist · 2015Review
- [Drug dosing in extracorporeal therapy].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOur intention was to assess knowledge and requirements related to drug dose adjustment in patients with impaired kidney function.
methodIn 2005, we sent a questionnaire containing 22 questions to nephrologists in Germany and Austria. With 77 responses, the study was not representative. However, it was probably of importance for the target group of practising physicians and potential users of a future drug information system.
resultsOnly 28% of the responding colleagues use the package inserts; these are obviously not considered to be an obligatory guideline for dose adjustment. The most common dosing problems (p < 0.05) were associated with anti-infective (48%) and anti-cancer drugs (25%). The greatest problems with dosing were encountered within intensive care units (29%). The risk of excessive dosing is estimated significantly more serious than the risk of underdosing (51% vs. 23%, p = 0.02). There was support for the statement that for cephalosporin antibiotics the trough levels are more important than peak levels (58% vs. 27%, p < 0.01). However, only 8% knew that in patients with impaired kidney function, trough concentrations of aminoglycosides and vancomycin need to be higher than in patients with normal kidney function for adequate peak levels to be obtained. Forty-five percent of respondents erroneously presumed that ceftriaxone must be adjusted to the kidney function. Half of the respondents were incorrect in assuming that ceftriaxone or moxifloxacin would be removed by dialysis.
conclusionsWe see the need for more knowledge-based information on drug dosing in patients with kidney impairment and those in the intensive care unit. The risk to life posed by underdosage might be underestimated, especially for anti-infective drugs.
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.