SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2015
Drug interaction databases in medical literature: transparency of ownership, funding, classification algorithms, level of documentation, and staff qualifications. A systematic review.
Synthesis 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. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Drug-drug interaction among elderly patients in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2025Pooled it
- Assessment of potential drug interactions in rheumatology: a comparative study of decision support software.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2026Article
- Pharmacotherapeutic actions related to drug interaction alerts - a questionnaire study among Swedish hospital interns and residents in family medicine.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- An Assessment of Different Decision Support Software from the Perspective of Potential Drug-Drug Interactions in Patients with Chronic Kidney Diseases.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Drug-drug interactions with oral anticoagulants: information consistency assessment of three commonly used online drug interactions databases in Switzerland.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Potential drug-drug interactions of antiretrovirals and antimicrobials detected by three databases.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Review of Questions Concerning Clinical Drug Interactions in ADHD Treatment From Physicians in Norway.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
- Drug Interactions in Space: a Cause for Concern?Pharmaceutical research · 2019Article
- A retrospective comparison of inappropriate prescribing of psychotropics in three Norwegian nursing homes in 2000 and 2016 with prescribing quality indicators.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Article
- The Possibility of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of the Most Important Interactions in Nursing Homes.Current clinical pharmacology · 2019Article
- Use of References in Responses from Scandinavian Drug Information Centres.Medicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIt is well documented that drug-drug interaction databases (DIDs) differ substantially with respect to classification of drug-drug interactions (DDIs). The aim of this study was to study online available transparency of ownership, funding, information, classifications, staff training, and underlying documentation of the five most commonly used open access English language-based online DIDs and the three most commonly used subscription English language-based online DIDs in the literature.
methodsWe conducted a systematic literature search to identify the five most commonly used open access and the three most commonly used subscription DIDs in the medical literature. The following parameters were assessed for each of the databases: Ownership, classification of interactions, primary information sources, and staff qualification. We compared the overall proportion of yes/no answers from open access databases and subscription databases by Fisher's exact test-both prior to and after requesting missing information.
resultsAmong open access DIDs, 20/60 items could be verified from the webpage directly compared to 24/36 for the subscription DIDs (p = 0.0028). Following personal request, these numbers rose to 22/60 and 30/36, respectively (p < 0.0001). For items within the "classification of interaction" domain, proportions were 3/25 versus 11/15 available from the webpage (P = 0.0001) and 3/25 versus 15/15 (p < 0.0001) available upon personal request.
conclusionAvailable information on online available transparency of ownership, funding, information, classifications, staff training, and underlying documentation varies substantially among various DIDs. Open access DIDs had a statistically lower score on parameters assessed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26369536What 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.