ReviewDrug discovery today2019
Assessing the public landscape of clinical-stage pharmaceuticals through freely available online databases.
Review in Drug discovery today, 2019. 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, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Study on the Mechanism of Acetyl Tributyl Citrate-Induced Infertility Toxicity and the Protective Action of Icariin Based on Network Toxicology, Network Pharmacology, Molecular-Docking Technology and Molecular Dynamics Simulation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in traditional Chinese medicine: advances in multi-metabolite multi-target interaction modeling.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- Cardioprotective Melatonin: Translating from Proof-of-Concept Studies to Therapeutic Use.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Several public databases have emerged over the past decade to enable chemo- and bio-informatics research in the field of drug development. To a naive observer, as well as many seasoned professionals, the differences among many drug databases are unclear. We assessed the availability of all pharmaceuticals with evidence of clinical testing (i.e., been in at least a Phase I clinical trial) and highlight the major differences and similarities between public databases containing clinically tested pharmaceuticals. We review a selection of the most recent and prominent databases including: ChEMBL, CRIB NME, DrugBank, DrugCentral, PubChem, repoDB, SuperDrug2 and WITHDRAWN, and found that ∼11700 unique active pharmaceutical ingredients are available in the public domain, with evidence of clinical testing.
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.