ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2017
An evaluation of the completeness of drug-drug interaction-related information in package inserts.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Provision and Need for Medicine Information in Asia and Africa: A Scoping Review of the Literature.Drug safety · 2021Article
- Article
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
purposeThe project aimed to evaluate the completeness of drug-drug interaction (DDI)-related information in package inserts (PIs) and develop a systematic approach to conduct the evaluation.
methodsDDI-related information in the branded PIs of statins, macrolides, protease inhibitors and selected drugs of narrow therapeutic index (DNTI) were evaluated against the criteria distilled from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labelling recommendation guidance document. Decision trees were crafted and employed in the evaluation process. Scores were computed to give each PI an overall completeness score and individual criterion completeness score. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn's multiple comparison test were used to assess the differences in the completeness scores.
resultsThe mean overall completeness score of the 21 PIs was 35.7 ± 13.4 % (range 12.2-62 %). Eight out of the 11 individual evaluation criterion had a mean completeness score below 50 %. A subclass analysis conducted revealed that PIs from the different drug classes differed in the type of DDI-related information, such that they are more complete or less complete.
conclusionThe completeness score of DDI-related information in the PIs varied extensively amongst and within drug classes. A consensus between the authorities and drug companies on the type and quality of DDI-related information to be included could improve their completeness in PIs and make PIs a valuable source of DDI reference. Decision trees, albeit not validated yet, lay the groundwork for a valuable tool to evaluate DDI-related or other drug information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27796467What 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.