ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2012
Concept-based learning of personalized prescribing.
Review in British 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Teaching therapy decision-making to medical students: a prospective mixed-methods evaluation of a curricular innovation.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Incorporating pharmacokinetic data into personalised prescribing for older people: challenges and opportunities.European geriatric medicine · 2021Review
- The short- and long-term effects of a course on rational drug use: A comparative study between prefinal- and final-year undergraduate medical students who attended the course in different clinical years.Journal of education and health promotion · 2021Article
- Gender differences in clinical registration trials: is there a real problem?British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Article
- Sleep Medication and Athletic Performance-The Evidence for Practitioners and Future Research Directions.Frontiers in physiology · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The variability of drug response in different patients can be caused by various factors including age, change in renal function, co-medication and genotype. Traditionally, these personal variables are considered by clinicians prior to issuing a prescription. This paper provides an overview of a process to individualize prescribing for a patient with an emphasis on how to train (learning) clinicians in skillful rational prescribing. For this purpose the 6STEP methodology, a concept-based learning strategy to achieve a structured therapeutic plan, has been introduced. In contrast to older educational approaches which focused primarily on the drugs or the process of prescribing, the 6STEP is a patient-centred method resulting in individualized therapy. The six interlinked steps provide the (training) prescriber with a structured framework that facilitates a rationalized therapeutic decision by focusing on the individual patient parameters that influence drug response. Educational tools for rational prescribing involve understanding of basic and clinical pharmacological principles, practicing to write 6STEP therapeutic plans, learning from feedback sessions on these plans and actively obtaining up to date information on drugs and therapeutic standards from online resources.
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.