ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics2017
The 10-D assessment and evidence-based medicine tool for authors and peer reviewers in clinical pharmacology .
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacovigilance of cutaneous adverse drug reactions in associations with drugs and medical conditions: a retrospective study of hospitalized patients.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2022Article
- Reproducible pharmacokinetics.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2019Review
- Essential Characteristics of Pharmacogenomics Study Publications.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2019Review
- How publication guidelines for clinical pharmacology trials may help to accelerate knowledge transfer.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeer reviewers and authors of clinical pharmacology manuscripts need to meet the standards for Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) and Good Publication Practices (GPP), and editors of clinical pharmacology journals have to maintain an overview of the peer review process. METHODS AND
resultsThe peer review process can be monitored and facilitated using the <bold>10-D assessment,</bold> which comprises peer review criteria to determine if: 1. <bold>d</bold>esign of the study, 2. <bold>d</bold>iagnoses employed, 3. <bold>d</bold>rug molecules involved, 4. <bold>d</bold>osages applied, 5. <bold>d</bold>ata collected, 6. <bold>d</bold>iscussion of the findings, 7. <bold>d</bold>eductions made, 8. <bold>d</bold>ocumentation, 9. <bold>d</bold>eclarations, and 10. <bold>d</bold>HS (drug hypersensitivity syndrome) risk assessment is in accord with the objectives of the study and meet the requirements of EBM and GPP.
conclusionsThe <bold>10-D assessment</bold> tool, although easy to apply, requires a high level of clinical pharmacology expertise, especially in the fields of drug disposition, pharmacokinetics, and drug action. Its application will facilitate the peer review of clinical research and clinical trial reports and thus promote safety in drug development and pharmacotherapy and meet the needs of Good Publication Practices. .
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.