ArticleThe International journal of pharmacy practice2018
Unlicensed medicines use: a UK guideline analysis using AGREE II.
Article in The International journal of pharmacy practice, 2018. 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.
- A multi-method study of unlicensed medicine risk assessment: a cross-sectional survey of pharmacy procurement leads and policy analysis across NHS trusts in England.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Unlicensed "Special" Medicines: Using the Pillar Integration Model to Understand Stakeholder Perspectives Across Care Settings.Integrated pharmacy research & practice · 2024Article
- Supporting patients with unlicensed medicine use: Analysing the script schemas for prescribing, pharmaceutical assessment and supply.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2021Article
- Unlicensed "Special" Medicines: Understanding the Community Pharmacist Perspective.Integrated pharmacy research & practice · 2020Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThere is widespread use of unlicensed medicines within primary and secondary care but little information is available around how these medicines are used. This analysis examines and evaluates the content and quality of relevant guidance documentation currently in use within the UK.
methodsGuidance documents were identified through a literature search as well as email requests to pharmacy organisations throughout the UK. Unlicensed medicine documentation suitable for inclusion in the analysis underwent thematic analysis and quality assessment using the AGREE II tool. KEY
findingsThematic analysis of 52 guidelines revealed four parent themes: (1) Professional responsibility (2) Usage practicalities (3) Risk versus benefit (4) Controlling use. There was variability in scores across the AGREE II domains with areas covering Scope and Purpose and Clarity of Presentation scoring well. Conversely, an area needing attention was Rigour of Development.
conclusionHealthcare organisations would benefit from agreeing a 'core content' for the development of unlicensed medicines guidelines to ensure consistency and the presence of robust operating systems to deliver safe, effective treatment to all NHS patients.
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.