ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2011
Use of ATC to describe duplicate medications in primary care prescriptions.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of Polypharmacy with Colorectal Cancer Survival Among Older Patients.The oncologist · 2021Article
- Prevalence and predictors of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug/analgesic therapeutic duplication in the South Korean ambulatory care setting.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Article
- Therapeutic target database update 2014: a resource for targeted therapeutics.Nucleic acids research · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to demonstrate the suitability of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification (ATC) to describe duplicate drugs and duplicate drug classes in prescription data and describe the pattern of duplicates from public and private primary care clinics of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
methodsWe analyzed prescription data year 2005 from all 14 public clinics in Kuala Lumpur with 12,157 prescriptions, and a sample of 188 private clinics with 25,612 prescriptions. As ATC Level 5 code represents the molecule and Level 4 represents the pharmacological subgroup, we used repetitions of codes in the same prescription to describe duplicate drugs or duplicate drug classes and compared them between the public and private clinics.
resultsAt Level 4 ATC, prescriptions with duplicates drug classes were 1.46% of all prescriptions in private and 0.04% in public clinics. At Level 5 ATC, prescriptions with duplicate drugs were 1.81% for private and 0.95% for public clinics. In private clinics at Level 5, 73.3% of prescriptions with duplicates involved systemic combination drugs; at Level 4, 40.3% involved systemic combination drugs. In the public sector at Level 5, 95.7% of prescriptions with duplicates involved topical products.
conclusionsRepetitions of the same ATC codes were mostly useful to describe duplicate medications; however, we recommend avoid using ATC codes for tropical products for this purpose due to ambiguity. Combination products were often involved in duplicate prescribing; redesign of these products might improve prescribing quality. Duplicates occurred more often in private clinics than public clinics in Malaysia.
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.