Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28860861›Full record

ArticleDrug, healthcare and patient safety2017

Potential drug-drug interactions in inpatients treated at the Internal Medicine ward of Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital.

Zelalem Tilahun Tesfaye, Teshome Nedi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug, healthcare and patient safety, 2017. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Potential drug-drug interactions in outpatients with depression of a psychiatry department.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zelalem Tilahun TesfayeDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar.
Teshome NediDepartment of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Addis Ababa University · ETUniversity of Gondar · ET

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAlthough the concomitant use of multiple drugs often increases therapeutic effectiveness, certain combinations result in unwanted drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Most interactions go unnoticed by physicians due to the absence of new clinical signs and symptoms, and because they often produce a worsening of already existing symptoms. Quantification of the occurrence of the potential DDIs is essential to prevent the harmful effects associated with interactions. This study was launched to assess the prevalence of potential DDIs in the Internal Medicine ward of Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. PATIENTS AND

methodsCross-sectional data were gathered from the medical charts of 252 randomly selected patients who were admitted to the Internal Medicine ward during August 23 to October 23, 2013, and exposed to at least two concomitant drugs. Potential DDIs were identified using Medscape Drug Interaction Checker. The data were analyzed using SPSS software. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the presence of association between variables and

resultsAt least one potential DDI was found in 78.2% of the patients. The mean number of potential interactions per patient was 3.7±3.4. Out of the 719 potential interactions identified, 49.8% were pharmacokinetic type, 44.6% were pharmacodynamic and the remaining 5.6% were unknown mechanisms. Major potential DDIs accounted for 13.1% of the whole interactions; 53.5% were moderate interactions; and the remaining 33.4% were minor interactions. Ceftriaxone, cimetidine and heparin were the three most involved drugs in major potential interactions. Prescription of five or more concomitant drugs was associated with high risk of encountering potential DDIs.

conclusionThe findings of this study showed that the prevalence of potential DDIs among inpatients was high. Pharmacists should closely review drugs prescribed for patients and avoid dispensing combinations of drugs that may have serious DDIs.

Indexed as

concomitant drugsEthiopiapharmacodynamic interactionspharmacokinetic interactionspotential drug interactionsTikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital

Identifiers

PMID28860861
PMCPMC5565246
OpenAlexW2746196217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.