ReviewBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2016
Nominal ISOMERs (Incorrect Spellings Of Medicines Eluding Researchers)-variants in the spellings of drug names in PubMed: a database review.
Review in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detecting Misspelled Drug Names Using Transformer-Based Language Models: Model Development and External Validation.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Competing Benefits and Competing Hazards: The Benefit to Harm Balance in Individual Patients in Rational Therapeutics.Drug safety · 2024Article
- Back to the basics: Guidance for designing good literature searches.Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Pharmacovigilance: An Introduction to Terms, Concepts, Applications, and Limitations.Drug safety · 2022Article
- The Oxford Catalogue of Opioids: A systematic synthesis of opioid drug names and their pharmacology.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Article
- An Analysis of the Safety of Medication Ordering Using Typo Correction within an Academic Medical System.Applied clinical informatics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine how misspellings of drug names could impede searches for published literature.
designDatabase review. DATA SOURCE: PubMed. REVIEW
methodsThe study included 30 drug names that are commonly misspelt on prescription charts in hospitals in Birmingham, UK (test set), and 30 control names randomly chosen from a hospital formulary (control set). The following definitions were used: standard names-the international non-proprietary names, variant names-deviations in spelling from standard names that are not themselves standard names in English language nomenclature, and hidden reference variants-variant spellings that identified publications in textword (tw) searches of PubMed or other databases, and which were not identified by textword searches for the standard names. Variant names were generated from standard names by applying letter substitutions, omissions, additions, transpositions, duplications, deduplications, and combinations of these. Searches were carried out in PubMed (30 June 2016) for "standard name[tw]" and "variant name[tw] NOT standard name[tw]."
resultsThe 30 standard names of drugs in the test set gave 325 979 hits in total, and 160 hidden reference variants gave 3872 hits (1.17%). The standard names of the control set gave 470 064 hits, and 79 hidden reference variants gave 766 hits (0.16%). Letter substitutions (particularly i to y and vice versa) and omissions together accounted for 2924 (74%) of the variants. Amitriptyline (8530 hits) yielded 18 hidden reference variants (179 (2.1%) hits). Names ending in "in," "ine," or "micin" were commonly misspelt. Failing to search for hidden reference variants of "gentamicin," "amitriptyline," "mirtazapine," and "trazodone" would miss at least 19 systematic reviews. A hidden reference variant related to Christmas, "No-el", was rare; variants of "X-miss" were rarer.
conclusionWhen performing searches, researchers should include misspellings of drug names among their search terms.
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.