ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2018
Clinical Utility of Definitive Drug⁻Drug Interaction Testing in Primary Care.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Randomized prospective trial to detect and distinguish between medication nonadherence, drug-drug interactions, and disease progression in chronic cardiometabolic disease.BMC primary care · 2023Trial
- Clinical Variation in the Treatment Practices for Medication Nonadherence, Drug-Drug Interactions, and Recognition of Disease Progression in Patients with Chronic Cardiometabolic Diseases: A Cross-Sectional Patient Simulation Study among Primary Care Physicians.International journal of clinical practice · 2022Trial
- Potential Drug Interactions in Adults Living in Manaus: A Real-World Comparison of Two Databases, 2019.Turkish journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2022Article
- Randomized Trial to Improve Primary Care Patient Management and Patient Outcomes Using a Drug-Drug Interaction Test: Confirmation of the DECART Simulated Patient Clinical Utility Trial Results.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Drug⁻drug interactions (DDIs) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. New tools are needed to improve identification and treatment of DDIs. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess the clinical utility of a new test to identify DDIs and improve their management. Primary care physicians (PCPs) cared for simulated patients presenting with DDI symptoms from commonly prescribed medications and other ingestants. All physicians, in either control or one of two intervention groups, cared for six patients over two rounds of assessment. Intervention physicians were educated on the DDI test and given access to these test reports when caring for their patients in the second round. At baseline, we saw no significant differences in making the DDI diagnosis (
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.