Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25859467›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2015

Evaluation of potential drug - drug interactions in general medicine ward of teaching hospital in southern India.

Akram Ahmad, Muhammad Umair Khan, Irfanul Haque, Rahul Ivan, Ram Dasari, Megha Revanker, A Pravina, Sheetal Kuriakose

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Factors associated with potential drug-drug interactions in psychiatric inpatients.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

8 authors.

Akram AhmadLecturer, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, UCSI University , Cheras, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia .
Muhammad Umair KhanLecturer, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, UCSI University , Cheras, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia .
Irfanul HaquePharm D Intern Students, Department of Pharmacy Practice, The Oxford College of Pharmacy , Bangalore, Karnataka, India .
Rahul IvanPharm D Intern Students, Department of Pharmacy Practice, The Oxford College of Pharmacy , Bangalore, Karnataka, India .
Ram DasariPharm D Intern Students, Department of Pharmacy Practice, The Oxford College of Pharmacy , Bangalore, Karnataka, India .
Megha RevankerPharm D Intern Students, Department of Pharmacy Practice, The Oxford College of Pharmacy , Bangalore, Karnataka, India .
A PravinaPharm D Intern Students, Department of Pharmacy Practice, The Oxford College of Pharmacy , Bangalore, Karnataka, India .
Sheetal KuriakoseAssistant Professor, Department of Pharmacy Practice, The Oxford College of Pharmacy , Bangalore, Karnataka, India .

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPolypharmacy is considered as one of the major risk factors in precipitation of drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Patient population at high risk include the elderly and patients with co morbidities as they are usually prescribed with more number of drugs. Critical evaluation of such prescriptions by pharmacist could result in identification and reduction of such problems.

objectiveThe study aims to assess the prevalence, severity and significance of potential DDI (pDDI) in general medicine wards of South Indian tertiary care teaching hospital. MATERIALS AND

methodA prospective observational study was conducted in a general medicine ward for a period of six months (September 2012 to February 2013). The socio-demographic, clinical characteristics and medication prescribed was documented in a specially designed form. Analysis was carried out to assess the prevalence, severity and significance of identified pDDIs using Micromedex. Descriptive and Univariate analysis were used to report the findings.

resultsA total of 404 case records reviewed, 78 (19.3%) patients had pDDIs. A total of 139 (34.4%) pDDIs were reported during the study period. Majority (53.95%, n=75) of the interactions were moderate in intensity and significant in nature (53.23%, n=74). Positive association between number of pDDIs and age was observed.

conclusionThe prevalence of pDDIs was 19.3% which is lesser then previously reported studies from India. Patient with more co-morbidities and elders were observed with more pDDIs. The study highlighted the need to effectively monitor and patients prevent pDDIs to improve patient safety.

Indexed as

Drug-drug interactionHospitalised patientsPolypharmacy

Identifiers

PMID25859467
PMCPMC4378749

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.