Trial reportJournal of clinical lipidology
Over-the-counter fish oil use in a county hospital: Medication use evaluation and efficacy analysis.
Trial report in Journal of clinical lipidology. 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, 2 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
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known about the use and effectiveness of over-the-counter (OTC) fish oil supplements for triglyceride (TG) lowering.
objectivesTo (1) perform a medication-use evaluation (MUE) and (2) assess the efficacy of OTC fish oil.
methodsRetrospective, observational cohort study using electronic medical records and the pharmacy database from Parkland Health and Hospital System in Dallas, Texas. Parkland is a tax-supported county institution that provides patients with single-brand OTC fish oil. Two separate analyses were conducted. Six hundred seventeen patients (prescribed fish oil between July 1, 2012, and August 31, 2012) were included in the MUE analysis and 235 patients (109 fish oil, 72 fenofibrate, and 54 gemfibrozil, prescribed between January 1, 2012, and July 31, 2013) were included in the efficacy analysis. The main outcome measure for the MUE was fish oil prescribing habits including dosages and patient adherence, as defined by medication possession ratio. The main outcome measure for the efficacy analysis was change in lipids measured using the last value before fish oil treatment and the first value after fish oil treatment.
resultsMUE: 617 patients received prescriptions for OTC fish oil. Sixty-four percent were prescribed a total daily dose of 2000 mg. Only 25% of patients were adherent. Efficacy analysis: despite being prescribed suboptimal doses, fish oil reduced TGs by 29% (95% confidence interval, 34.3-22.7). Compared with fish oil therapy, fibrate therapy resulted in a greater TG reduction: 48.5% (55.1-41.0) with fenofibrate and 49.8% (57.6-40.5) with gemfibrozil (P < .0001, both medications compared with fish oil).
conclusionsHealth care providers prescribe suboptimal doses of fish oil, and adherence is poor. Even at low doses (2 g/d), though, fish oil lowers TGs by 29%.
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.