Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29748299›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists2018

Drug interaction screening in SWOG clinical trials.

Daniel L Hertz, Rivka Siden, Jessie Modlin, Linda Lee Gabel, Siu Fun Wong

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. The Advanced Practice Role in Clinical Trials: Past, Present, and Future.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel L HertzDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Michigan College of Pharmacy, Ann Arbor, MI dlhertz@med.umich.edu.
Rivka SidenOncology Clinical Trials Support Unit, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Jessie ModlinSt. Luke's Mountain States Tumor Institute, Boise, ID.
Linda Lee GabelSmilow Hospital at Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT.
Siu Fun WongChapman University School of Pharmacy, Irvine, CA.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USChapman University · USSmilow Cancer Hospital · USSt. Luke's Mountain States Tumor Institute · US

Funding

SWOG Network Group Operations Center of the NCTNU10CA180888 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI PRIMO N. LARA · 2014 to 2026
$152.1M
UM LAPs- U10 GrantU10CA180801 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI ZALUPSKI, MARK M · 2014 to 2018
$3.7M
NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180801NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180888
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe frequency and process for drug interaction (DI) screening at sites enrolling patients into SWOG clinical trials were studied.

methodsSurvey invitations were e-mailed to 180 SWOG head clinical research associates to determine the frequency of and personnel involved in DI assessment in subjects who were screened for and enrolled in clinical trials at their sites. Descriptive statistics were performed to evaluate the data.

resultsA total of 83 surveys recorded a response to at least 1 question, yielding an overall response rate of 46.1%. At least 72 completed surveys were submitted, for a completion rate of 40.0%. The majority of sites (51%) reported that DI screening only occurred during eligibility assessment when a DI was included in the protocol exclusion criteria. The pharmacist was "always" involved in DI screening during eligibility assessment at 17% of sites. Clinical research coordinators (56%) and research nurses (45%) were the predominant personnel who performed DI screening to assess eligibility for trial enrollment. A subset of sites (3-6%) reported not having access to a pharmacist. Fewer than 10% of sites reported that they "always" use drug information services, websites, resources, or literature searches, though many tools were used "often" or "sometimes" by more than 20% of sites.

conclusionA survey revealed that DI screening was not being systematically conducted within SWOG clinical trials. When DI screening did occur, it was primarily conducted by clinical research coordinators or study nurses. Pharmacist-led DI screening was not the current practice within SWOG sites surveyed and was precluded by a lack of pharmacists' availability or involvement.

Indexed as

Drug InteractionsClinical Trials as TopicHumansNeoplasmsPharmaceutical ServicesPharmacistsProfessional RoleSurveys and Questionnairesclinical trialdrug interactionsoncologypharmacistsurvey

Identifiers

PMID29748299
PMCPMC6685422
OpenAlexW2799503352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.