Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24167524›Full record

ArticleDeutsches Arzteblatt international2013

Comprehension of the description of side effects in drug information leaflets: a survey of doctors, pharmacists and lawyers.

Andreas Ziegler, Anka Hadlak, Steffi Mehlbeer, Inke R König

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02246361 (Impact of Six Patient Information Leaflets), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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.

NCT02246361 phase4completednot on this mapstarted 2014, after this paper: background citation

Impact of Six Patient Information Leaflets (PIL) on Doctor Patient Communication and Adherence in Emergency Ward

TypeinterventionalSponsorFloralisRan2014 to 2015Enrolled211ConditionsAnkle Sprain, Infectious Colitis, Diverticulitis, PyelonephritisArmsPatient Information Leaflet (PIL)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Risks, risk assessment and risk competence in toxicology.German medical science : GMS e-journal · 2015
    Article
  9. Evidence-based health information and risk competence.German medical science : GMS e-journal · 2015
    Article
  10. In reply.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014
    Article
  11. Difficult to reconcile.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014
    Article
  12. Not too much to ask.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014
    Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Andreas ZieglerInstitute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, University of Lübeck ; Centre for Clinical Trials, University of Lübeck.
Anka Hadlak
Steffi Mehlbeer
Inke R König

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte, BfArM) states that it uses standardized terms to describe the probabilities of side effects in drug information leaflets. It is unclear, however, whether these terms are actually understood correctly by doctors, pharmacists, and lawyers.

methodsA total of 1000 doctors, pharmacists, and lawyers were questioned by mail, and 60.4% of the questionnaires were filled out and returned. In the absence of any particular, potentially suggestive context, the respondents were asked to give a numerical interpretation of each of 20 verbal expressions of probability. Side effects were the subject of a hypothetical physician-patient case scenario. The respondents were also asked to give percentages that they felt corresponded to the terms "common," "uncommon," and "rare." The values obtained were compared with the intended values of the BfArM.

resultsThe results obtained from the three professional groups resembled each other but stood in marked contrast to the BfArM definitions. With respect to side effects, the pharmacists matched the BfArM definitions most closely (5.8% "common," 1.9% "uncommon" and "rare"), followed by the physicians (3.5%, 0.3%, 0.9%) and the lawyers (0.7%, 0%, 0.7%). When the context of the side effects was not mentioned, the degree of agreement was much lower.

conclusionStatements about the frequency of side effects are found in all drug information leaflets. Only a small minority of the respondents correctly stated the meaning of terms that are used to describe the frequency of occurrence of side effects, even though they routinely have to convey probabilities of side effects in the course of their professional duties. It can be concluded that the BfArM definitions of these terms do not, in general, correspond to their meanings in ordinary language.

Indexed as

ComprehensionDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsPamphletsDocumentationDrug LabelingGermanyHumansLawyersPharmacistsPhysiciansPractice Guidelines as TopicTerminology as Topic

Identifiers

PMID24167524
PMCPMC3804775

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.