ArticleDeutsches Arzteblatt international2013
Comprehension of the description of side effects in drug information leaflets: a survey of doctors, pharmacists and lawyers.
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.
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.
Impact of Six Patient Information Leaflets (PIL) on Doctor Patient Communication and Adherence in Emergency Ward
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Placebo eff ects in psychiatry: mediators and moderators.The lancet. Psychiatry · 2015Pooled it
- Oral Side Effects of the Most Commonly Prescribed Drugs in Germany.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes and Sources of Information About Adverse Drug Reactions-A Survey Study Among Patients and Healthcare Professionals in Poland.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026Article
- A comparative analysis of clinical quality and readability of neuropathic pain patient information leaflets: Türkiye versus the United States.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- How does the side-effect information in patient information leaflets influence peoples' side-effect expectations? A cross-sectional national survey of 18- to 65-year-olds in England.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017Article
- People's Understanding of Verbal Risk Descriptors in Patient Information Leaflets: A Cross-Sectional National Survey of 18- to 65-Year-Olds in England.Drug safety · 2017Article
- Aggression and violence against primary care physicians—a nationwide questionnaire survey.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2015Article
- Risks, risk assessment and risk competence in toxicology.German medical science : GMS e-journal · 2015Article
- Evidence-based health information and risk competence.German medical science : GMS e-journal · 2015Article
- In reply.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014Article
- Difficult to reconcile.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014Article
- Not too much to ask.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014Article
- The subjective understanding of guideline recommendations and of the risks of the side effects of medication.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on byIn reply.2014
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.