ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2015
Development and evaluation of an algorithm to facilitate drug prescription for inpatients with feeding tubes.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to develop and evaluate an algorithm to facilitate drug switching between primary and tertiary care for patients with feeding tubes.
methodsAn expert consortium developed an algorithm and applied it manually to 267 preadmission drugs of 46 patients admitted to a surgical ward of a tertiary care university hospital between June 12 and December 2, 2013, and requiring a feeding tube during their inpatient stay.
resultsThe new algorithm considered the following principles: Drugs should be ideally listed on the hospital drug formulary (HDF). Additionally, drugs should include the same ingredient instead of a therapeutic equivalent. Preferred dosage forms were appropriate liquids, followed by solid drugs with liquid administration form, and solid drugs that could be crushed and/or suspended. Of all evaluated drugs, 83.5% could be switched to suitable drugs listed on the HDF and another 6.0% to drugs available on the German drug market. Additionally, for 4.1% of the drugs, the integration of individual switching rules allowed the switch from enteric-coated to immediate-release drugs. Consequently, 6.4% of the drugs could not be automatically switched and required case-to-case decision by a clinical professional (e.g., from sustained-release to immediate-release).
conclusionsThe predefined principles were successfully integrated in the new algorithm. Thus, the algorithm switched more than 90% of the evaluated preadmission drugs to suitable drugs for inpatients with feeding tubes. This finding suggests that the algorithm can readily be transferred to an electronic format and integrated into a clinical decision support system.
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.