ArticleP & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management2018
P&T Committee Drug Prioritization Criteria: A Tool Developed by a Saudi Health Care System.
Article in P & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- An innovative tool to prioritize the assessment of investigational COVID-19 therapeutics: A pilot project.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2024Article
- A Formulary Management Group Consensus.Global journal on quality and safety in healthcare · 2024Article
- Lomitapide: A Medication Use Evaluation and a Formulary Perspective.Global journal on quality and safety in healthcare · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe workflow of a P&T committee can become overwhelming and may be affected by many internal and external factors. Organization, standardization, and an enhanced systematic approach for drug evaluations are necessary to ensure that all requested drugs receive an equal and unbiased evaluation and consideration for addition based on the institution's objectives, priorities, and budget. Our aim was to create a scoring tool that would assist in systematically prioritizing drugs being requested for formulary addition and to eliminate cumbersome evaluations for drugs that clearly do not offer any additional advantage.
methodsA working group consisting of P&T committee members met with the task of creating initial screening criteria for prioritizing drugs requested for formulary addition. Members conducted independent literature searches and focused meetings to develop a scoring tool that would be piloted on drugs being requested for addition.
resultsWe developed a scoring tool to prioritize drugs requested for formulary addition. The tool assigns a score for each drug that allows it to be classified into one of three categories: 1) for expedited review, 2) for routine review, or 3) for rejection without the need for a full evaluation.
conclusionsWe believe that this scoring tool will assist in prioritizing drugs requested for formulary addition while allowing for full consideration of the most important decision-making factors. In an era of expected U.S. Food and Drug Administration deregulation and economic constraints, P&T committees must create tools that ease their workflow and organize their priorities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29719371PMC5912247What 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.