ArticleDrug safety2011
Clarity and applicability of drug-drug interaction management guidelines: a systematic appraisal by general practitioners and community pharmacists in the Netherlands.
Article in Drug safety, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Checklist for standardized reporting of drug-drug interaction management guidelines.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the availability and daily use of computerized drug-drug interaction surveillance systems, exposure to potentially relevant drug-drug interactions (DDIs) continues. DDI management guidelines are often inadequate and clear management options are lacking, which attributes to overriding of DDI signals. Although general criteria for the development and reporting of high-quality clinical practice guidelines have been identified, it appears these have not yet been applied to DDI management guidelines.
objectivesThe aim of the study was to assess the clarity and applicability of guidelines for the management of potentially harmful DDIs.
methodsWe selected 13 DDIs that are potentially harmful for patients and frequently occur in community pharmacy practice in the Netherlands. The clarity and applicability of the management guidelines of these DDIs were appraised using the appropriate two domains - 'Clarity and presentation' and 'Applicability', of the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Instrument. The appraisal was performed by 12 community pharmacists and 12 general practitioners. The standardized domain scores and mean item scores for 'Clarity and presentation' and 'Applicability' were compared.
resultsAll DDI management guidelines were generally found to score well on 'Clarity and presentation', but poorly with respect to 'Applicability' (standardized domain scores 68.0 vs 26.1%). Within the domain 'Clarity and presentation', the item 'tools for application' received the lowest scores. Within the domain 'Applicability', cost implications, organizational barriers and key review criteria were all poorly documented. All guidelines presented non-directive advice using words such as 'consider' and 'regularly'.
conclusionsDevelopers of DDI management guidelines should take the appropriate domains of the AGREE Instrument into consideration in their development processes. The applicability of DDI management guidelines should be pretested before publishing. To improve guideline quality, more attention should particularly be paid to the available tools for applications and cost implications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21751828What 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.