Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25848546›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2014

Medicines discarded in household garbage: analysis of a pharmaceutical waste sample in Vienna.

Sabine Vogler, Christine Leopold, Christel Zuidberg, Claudia Habl

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. End-of-life management strategies of pharmaceuticals in Portuguese households.Waste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Sabine VoglerWHO Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Policies, Health Economics Department, Gesundheit Österreich GmbH/Geschäftsbereich ÖBIG - Austrian Health Institute, Vienna, Austria.
Christine LeopoldWHO Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Policies, Health Economics Department, Gesundheit Österreich GmbH/Geschäftsbereich ÖBIG - Austrian Health Institute, Vienna, Austria.
Christel ZuidbergWHO Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Policies, Health Economics Department, Gesundheit Österreich GmbH/Geschäftsbereich ÖBIG - Austrian Health Institute, Vienna, Austria ; WHO Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Policy and Regulation, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Claudia HablWHO Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Policies, Health Economics Department, Gesundheit Österreich GmbH/Geschäftsbereich ÖBIG - Austrian Health Institute, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo analyze a sample of pharmaceutical waste drawn from household garbage in Vienna, with the aim to learn whether and which medicines end up unused in normal household waste.

methodsWe obtained a pharmaceutical waste sample from the Vienna Municipal Waste Department. This was drawn by their staff in a representative search in October and November 2009. We did a manual investigation of the sample which contained packs and loose blisters, excluded medical devices and traced loose blisters back to medicines packs. We reported information on the prescription status, origin, therapeutic group, dose form, contents and expiry date. We performed descriptive statistics for the total data set and for sub-groups (e.g. items still containing some of original content).

resultsIn total, 152 packs were identified, of which the majority was prescription-only medicines (74%). Cardiovascular medicines accounted for the highest share (24%). 87% of the packs were in oral form. 95% of the packs had not expired. 14.5% of the total data set contained contents but the range of content left in the packs varied. Results on the packs with contents differed from the total: the shares of Over-the Counter medicines (36%), of medicines of the respiratory system (18%) and of the musculo-skeletal system (18%), for dermal use (23%) and of expired medicines (19%) were higher compared to the full data set.

conclusionsThe study showed that some medicines end up unused or partially used in normal household garbage in Vienna. Our results did not confirm speculations about a high percentage of unused medicines improperly discarded. There is room for improved patient information and counseling to enhance medication adherence and a proper discharge of medicines.

Indexed as

AustriaMedical waste disposalMedication adherenceMedicines utilizationPharmacy services

Identifiers

PMID25848546
PMCPMC4366941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.