Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30223533›Full record

ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2018

Rational Use of Medicines in Neonates: Current Observations, Areas for Research and Perspectives.

Karel Allegaert

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Cross-sectional study of drug utilisation in a Chinese neonatal unit.The Journal of international medical research · 2020
    Article
  5. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Karel AllegaertDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children's Hospital, Doctor Molenwaterplein 40, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands. k.allegaert@erasmusmc.nl.
Erasmus MC - Sophia Children’s Hospital · NL

Funding

Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie SBO 130033
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A focused reflection on rational medicines use in neonates is valuable and relevant, because indicators to assess rational medicines use are difficult to apply to neonates. Polypharmacy and exposure to antibiotics are common, while dosing regimens or clinical guidelines are only rarely supported by robust evidence in neonates. This is at least in part due to the extensive variability in pharmacokinetics and subsequent effects of medicines in neonates. Medicines utilization research informs us on trends, on between unit variability and on the impact of guideline implementation. We illustrate these aspects using data on drugs for gastroesophageal reflux, analgesics or anti-epileptic drugs. Areas for additional research are drug-related exposure during breastfeeding (exposure prediction) and how to assess safety (tools to assess seriousness, causality, and severity tailored to neonates) since both efficacy and safety determine rational drug use. To further improve rational medicines use, we need more data and tools to assess efficacy and safety in neonates. Moreover, we should facilitate access to such data, and explore strategies for effective implementation. This is because prescription practices are not only rational decisions, but also have psychosocial aspects that may guide clinicians to irrational practices, in part influenced by the psychosocial characteristics of this population.

Indexed as

clinical pharmacologyeffective implementationnewbornperinatal pharmacologyrational drug utilization

Identifiers

PMID30223533
PMCPMC6165407
OpenAlexW2891224165

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.