ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2012
Defining innovations of therapeutic interventions: a position paper by the Italian Society of Hospital Pharmacists.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Defining innovation in pharmacotherapy is complex because general definitions cannot be easily adapted to the specificity of different therapeutic areas. The Italian Society of Hospital Pharmacists has developed a position paper in which three criteria are used to recognise innovation to a new intervention: (1) clinical relevance of the trial's primary end-point; (2) evidence of superiority; (3) use of an adequate comparator in the controlled trial. Clinically relevant end-points should appear in predetermined lists by therapeutic area managed by our society; likewise, the third criterion must be documented by an authoritative therapeutic guideline recognised to be still valid. A preliminary attempt is presented to retrospectively apply these criteria, particularly the first one, to a series of 21 clinical trials; this initial experience has generated a first list of clinically relevant end-points. This approach of innovation assessment is proposed for application also in the field of medical devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22382884What 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.