Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29181699›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2018

Benefits, benefits, once more benefits... with no risk? Stop overlooking the harms of medicines.

Silvio Garattini, Vittorio Bertele'

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Patient harm from cardiovascular medications.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2021
    Review
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.

Silvio GarattiniIstituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri-IRCCS, via Giuseppe La Masa 19, 20156, Milan, Italy. silvio.garattini@marionegri.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0032-7033
Vittorio Bertele'Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri-IRCCS, via Giuseppe La Masa 19, 20156, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Consideration of drug benefits and harms is asymmetric. Approval of drugs is mainly based on efficacy, while the assessment of their safety is left to post-marketing commitments or spontaneous reporting. Benefits are overestimated as a result of pharmaceutical companies' advertisements, the paucity of independent information, and the scant understanding of the effectiveness of medicines in real life. Polypharmacy in older adults-even during the last period of their life-reflects the tendency to assign priority to efficacy and overlook harms, although nobody knows what happens when three or more drugs are given chronically. Medical journals and public research funding projects do not pay enough attention to drug toxicity. We call for a sense of purpose by all those involved in medicine to tackle this problem. European and national agencies and health authorities should promote and support independent information and experimental and clinical studies on drug toxicity. Information should rely not just on spontaneous reporting but also on active pharmacovigilance. The benefit-harm profile of drugs should be periodically reviewed in the light of toxic effects that come to light over the years. Potential interactions within polytherapies should be sought by re-assessing the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of their components.

Indexed as

ComorbidityPharmacovigilancePolypharmacyAgedAged, 80 and overChronic DiseaseDrug InteractionsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsGeriatricsHumansProfessional RoleWorkforceBenefitDrug toxicityEffectivenessHarmPolypharmacyRisk

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.