Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27630750›Full record

ArticleObstetric medicine2016

Pregnancy and lactation advice: How does Australian Product Information compare with established information resources?

Emma Brown, Elizabeth Hotham, Neil Hotham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Obstetric medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

3 authors.

Emma BrownPharmacy Department, Lyell McEwin Hospital, South Australia, Australia.
Elizabeth HothamBachelor of Pharmacy, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Neil HothamAustralian Medicines Handbook Pty Ltd, Adelaide, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProduct information is a popular medicines information resource; however, there is some evidence that its pregnancy and lactation information is overconservative, which can lead to inadequate treatment of pregnant and lactating women.

methodsA thorough analysis of pregnancy and lactation information within Australian Product Information and Consumer Medicines Information was performed. The statements within these resources were compared with established clinical resources: Australian Medicines Handbook, Therapeutic Guidelines, South Australian Perinatal Practice Guidelines, Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, LactMed, Motherisk and the Pregnancy and Breastfeeding Medicines Guide published by the Royal Women's Hospital Melbourne.

resultsProduct Information was found to be the most cautious resource, with 44.5% of pregnancy recommendations and 69% of lactation recommendations reviewed being more conservative than other resources.

conclusionProduct Information is an imperfect and often overconservative reference for pregnant and lactating women. Health professionals are urged to review established clinical resources to inform decision making.

Indexed as

clinical pharmacologyDrugs (medication)maternal–fetal medicine

Identifiers

PMID27630750
PMCPMC5010117

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.