ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2012
Modelling drug-related morbidity in Sweden using an expert panel of physicians.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2012. 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.
- Effect of a patient-centred deprescribing procedure in older multimorbid patients in Swiss primary care - A cluster-randomised clinical trial.BMC geriatrics · 2020Trial
- Prevalence, nature and potential preventability of adverse drug events - a population-based medical record study of 4970 adults.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2014Article
- Prevalence and perceived preventability of self-reported adverse drug events--a population-based survey of 7099 adults.PloS one · 2013Article
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
purposeIn modelling studies using pharmacists' opinions, drug-related morbidity (DRM) and preventable DRM have been more common than in observational studies, and the resulting costs are extensive. Modelling studies' estimates may vary depending on informants' profession. The purpose of this modelling study was to estimate the proportion of patients with DRM and preventable DRM and the cost of illness (COI) of DRM in Sweden based on physicians' expert opinions.
methodA conceptual model of DRM was modified from previous studies. Using a modified Delphi technique, a panel of physicians (n = 19) estimated the probabilities of DRM, preventable DRM, and clinical outcomes of DRM separately for outpatients and inpatients. DRM included new medical problems (adverse drug reactions, drug dependence, and intoxications by overdose) and therapeutic failure (insufficient effects of medicines, and morbidity due to untreated indication). A COI analysis included the direct costs of DRM.
resultsPhysicians estimated that 51 ± 22% [mean ± standard deviation (SD)] of outpatients experience DRM and 12 ± 8% preventable DRM. Of inpatients, 54 ± 17% was estimated to experience DRM and 16 ± 7% preventable DRM. Of outpatients with DRM, 24 ± 11% was estimated to experience preventable DRM, whereas this proportion for inpatients was 31 ± 15%. The estimated COI was 376 euros per outpatient and 838 euros per inpatient.
conclusionsSwedish physicians estimated that every other outpatient and inpatient experiences DRM, which is often preventable and costly. As physicians' estimates on the proportion of patients with DRM were higher than in observational studies in restricted subpopulations, DRM may be more common in the general population than observational studies suggest.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22392557What 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.