Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2011
Knowledge of the pharmacological profile of a patient improves the quality of prescribing, the outcomes of treatment, and the utilization of health services in primary health care.
Trial report 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Study considering the use of medicines in children receiving free care].The Pan African medical journal · 2019Article
- Risk factors for potentially inappropriate prescribing to older patients in primary care.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the influence of the pharmacological profile of a patient (PPP) on quality of drug prescribing, treatment effectiveness, safety, and health services utilization in a group of outpatients.
methodsThe study was designed as an open, nonrandomized trial of an intervention in health care. The outpatient intervention group (n = 39) received the PPP, and the control group (n = 36) did not. In all cases, the outcomes were observed for a 2-year period in total; in the intervention group 1 year of observation was allocated before and another year after the introduction of the PPP.
resultsThe PPPs reduced multiple prescriptions by 1.08 ± 1.13 drugs per patient, whereas in those who did not receive the PPP, an increase of 1.44 ± 1.48 drugs per patient occurred (P < 0.001, 95% CI 1.91-3.13). A decrease in the medication appropriateness index score of 0.81 ± 0.51 per drug per patient in the intervention group was observed (P = 0.001, 95% CI 0.63-0.93), and in the control group an increase was noted (0.13 ± 0.40; P = 0.063). The majority of patients with PPP experienced fewer adverse drug reactions (0.96 ± 0.58 fewer, P < 0.001 vs. controls, 95% CI 1.39-2.13), and they were more likely to have an improvement in health status (OR 22.0, 95% CI 5.87-82.41). Finally, the PPPs decreased both the number of examinations and the number of diagnostic investigations, on average by 2.15 and 2.26 services per patient, respectively.
conclusionsUse of a pharmacological profile of a patient in primary care practice could improve not only prescribing behavior of general practitioners, but also effectiveness and safety of therapy, while reducing utilization of health services.
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.