ArticleRheumatology international2018
Analysis of the data on pregnancy and lactation provided by patient information leaflets of anti-rheumatic drugs in Argentina.
Article in Rheumatology international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To analyse the level of consistency and updating of the information on pregnancy and lactation provided by patient information leaflets (PILs) of the antirheumatic drugs approved in Argentina. Inconsistencies between the 2016 EULAR Task Force recommendations on the use of anti-rheumatic drugs during pregnancy and lactation and the information provided by PILs of the same drugs approved in Argentina were analysed along with inconsistencies within the PILs of different registered trademarks of these drugs. Eighty-eight PILs of 32 drugs were analysed. Out of the 88 PILs, 50% presented information inconsistencies as to pregnancy. Medications comprised in this group were: hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, NSAIDs (during the first two trimesters), celecoxib, some glucocorticoids, colchicine, and some anti-TNF drugs (etanercept, adalimumab and infliximab) during part of the pregnancy. As for lactation, 56% had information inconsistencies. Medications encompassed in this group were: hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, sulfasalazine, azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, NSAIDs, celecoxib, meprednisone, prednisone, colchicine, and anti-TNF drugs. Out of 17 drugs that had more than one registered trademark, information inconsistencies on pregnancy were found in the PILs of sulfasalazine, diclofenac, ibuprofen and methylprednisolone. Concerning lactation, inconsistencies were present in the PILs of hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, diclofenac, ibuprofen, meprednisone, and colchicine. At least half of the PILs of anti-rheumatic drugs analysed in this study had information inconsistencies on pregnancy and lactation. This is a serious state of affairs because the consensual decision-making process between patient and professional may be compromised, which, in turn, may give rise to medical-legal issues.
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.