ArticleRevista espanola de salud publica2017
[Description of postauthorisation observational prospective studies with drugs in the valencian region between 2010 and 2015. Factors associated with their authorisation.]
Article in Revista espanola de salud publica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePostauthorisation observational studies are crucial source of information on drug effectiveness and safety. The objectives of this work were to describe the characteristics of the postauthorisation observational prospective studies (EPA-SP) for which authorisation was requested in the Valencian region, as well as to explore which factors influenced the aforementioned authorisation.
methodsWe performed a retrospective analytical study comprising all the EPA-SP for which authorisation was requested in the Valencian region between 2010 and 2015.The variables associated to the studies (e.g., objectives, studied drug, target disease) as well as those concerning the authorisation process itself (e.g., authorisation status, reason for authorisation refusal, current status of the study) were obtained from relevant databases. The analysis was divided into descriptive and analytical stages.
resultsWe included a total of 249 studies, out of which 192 (77, 1%) aimed at estimating effectiveness or quality of life. The most frequent types of drugs involved in the studies were the antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents (42%). Only 57% of the studies were granted authorisation, with prescription induction and unusual practice being the most common causes for refusal (40.1% and 39.3%, respectively). The authorisation was linked to the diagnosis (circulatory system OR 10,7, IC95% 2,3 to 49,1), ATC L group (OR 4,2, IC95% 1,9 to 49,1) as well as to whether it had been advocated by the industry (OR 0,5, IC95% 0,3 to 0,9).
conclusionsGiven the importance of having information on effectiveness and safety in usual practice, it is a priority for EPA-SP to be directed towards these aims and to promote independent research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29171462PMC11587379What 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.