ArticlePharmacology research & perspectives2018
Natural language processing-based assessment of consistency in summaries of product characteristics of generic antimicrobials.
Article in Pharmacology research & perspectives, 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.
- The Quality and Reliability of Information in the Summaries of Product Characteristics.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Discrepancies Between the Labels of Originator and Generic Pharmaceutical Products: Implications for Patient Safety.Drugs - real world outcomes · 2020Article
- Natural language processing-based assessment of consistency in summaries of product characteristics of generic antimicrobials.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate consistency in summaries of product characteristics (SmPCs) of generic antimicrobials, we used natural language processing (NLP) to analyze and compare large amounts of text quantifying consistency between original and generic SmPCs. We manually compared each section of generic and original SmPCs for antimicrobials listed in the electronic Medicines Compendium in the United Kingdom, focusing on omissions and additions of clinically significant information (CSI). Independently, we quantified differences between the original and generic SmPCs using Kachako, a fully automatic NLP platform. Among the 137 antimicrobials listed in the electronic Medicines Compendium, we identified 193 pairs of original and generic antimicrobial SmPCs for the 48 antimicrobials for which generic SmPCs existed. Of these 193 pairs, 157 (81%) were consistent and 36 were inconsistent with the original SmPC. When the cut-off value of RATE (the index of similarity between two SmPCs) was set at 0.860, our NLP system effectively discriminated consistent generic SmPCs with a specificity of 100% and a sensitivity of 61%. We observed CSI omissions but not additions in the SmPC subsection related to pharmacokinetic properties. CSI additions but not omissions were found in the subsections dealing with therapeutic indications and fertility, pregnancy and lactation. Despite regulatory guidance, we observed substantial inconsistencies in the information in the United Kingdom SmPCs for antimicrobials. NLP technology proved to be a useful tool for checking large numbers of SmPCs for consistency.
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.