Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25477601›Full record

ArticleHospital pharmacy2014

Apremilast.

Dennis J Cada, Kyle Ingram, Danial E Baker

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Hospital pharmacy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

3 authors.

Dennis J CadaFounder and Contributing Editor, The Formulary , Washington State University , Spokane, Washington.
Kyle IngramDrug Information Resident, Drug Information Center, Washington State University , Spokane, Washington.
Danial E BakerDirector, Drug Information Center, and Professor of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, Washington State University Spokane , PO Box 1495, Spokane, Washington 99210-1495 . The authors indicate no relationships that could be perceived as a conflict of interest .

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are sent in print and are also available on-line. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. A drug class review is now published monthly with The Formulary Monograph Service. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service, call The Formulary at 800-322-4349. The September 2014 monograph topics are tedizolid phosphate, ceritinib, omega-3-carboxylic acids, umeclidinium bromide inhalation powder, and siltuximab. The DUE/MUE is on avoidance of insulin use errors.

Identifiers

PMID25477601
PMCPMC4252204

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.