Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22950551›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2012

Balanced prescribing - principles and challenges.

Jeffrey K Aronson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jeffrey K AronsonDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, UK. jeffrey.aronson@phc.ox.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Balanced prescribing is a process that recommends a medicine appropriate to the patient's condition and, within the limits created by the uncertainty that attends therapeutic decisions, a dosage regimen that optimizes the balance of benefit to harm. The essential steps in achieving this are (a) careful attention to the history, examination, and investigation of the patient's condition and drug therapy, (b) accurate diagnosis, (c) detailed attention to prescribing the dosage regimen in the light of the therapeutic goal, (d) careful writing of the prescription and (e) regular monitoring of therapy, including attention to beneficial outcomes, adverse reactions, and patient adherence. The two major requirements in determining the dosage regimen are (1) understanding the pathophysiology of a health problem and matching it to the mechanisms of action of the relevant medicines and (2) assessing the benefit to harm balance of the therapy, although the difficulties in doing this in the individual are great. Major challenges in prescribing include provision of adequate education for all prescribers early in their undergraduate training and maintaining their expertise after graduation, obtaining evidence to inform appropriate monitoring of therapy, reducing the incidence of medication errors, and providing high quality information that will at the same time guide prescribing decisions and be sufficiently flexible to allow prescribers to tailor therapy to the needs of the individual patient. Careful attention to all facets of prescribing can improve the chances of benefit, reduce the risks of adverse reactions and interactions, and enhance adherence to therapy.

Indexed as

Drug PrescriptionsHumansMedication ErrorsPatient Participation

Identifiers

PMID22950551
PMCPMC3477323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.