ArticleBosnian journal of basic medical sciences2013
Assessment of the consistency among three drug compendia in listing and ranking of drug-drug interactions.
Article in Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences, 2013. 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.
- Signals of Adverse Reactions to Herbal Medicines: Evidence and Document Analysis Based on a Scoping Review.Drug safety · 2025Article
- Determination of Potential Drug-Drug Interactions Using Various Software Programs in a Community Pharmacy Setting.Turkish journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2019Article
- Incidence rate and pattern of clinically relevant potential drug-drug interactions in a large outpatient population of a developing country.Research in pharmaceutical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inconsistent information about drug-drug interactions can cause variations in prescribing, and possibly increase the incidence of morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to assess whether there is an inconsistency in drug-drug interaction listing and ranking in three authoritative, freely accessible online drug information sources: The British National Formulary; The Compendium about Drugs Licensed for Use in the United Kingdom (the Electronic Medicines Compendium) and the Compendium about Drugs Licensed for Use in the United States (the DailyMed). Information on drug-drug interactions for thirty drugs which have a high or medium potential for interactions have been selected for analysis. In total, 1971 drug-drug interactions were listed in all three drug information sources, of these 992 were ranked as the interactions with the potential of clinical significance. Comparative analysis identified that 63.98% of interactions were listed in only one drug information source, and 66.63% of interactions were ranked in only one drug information source. Only 15.12% listed and 11.19% ranked interactions were identified in all three information sources. Intraclass correlation coefficient indicated a weak correlation among the three drug information sources in listing (0.366), as well as in ranking drug interactions (0.467). This study showed inconsistency of information on drug-drug interaction for the selected drugs in three authoritative, freely accessible online drug information sources. The application of a uniform methodology in assessment of information, and then the presentation of information in a standardized format is required to prevent and adequately manage drug-drug interactions.
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.