ReviewInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2019
Critical review of European Medicines Agency (EMA) assessment report and related literature on domperidone.
Review in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk of Adverse Events Associated with Domperidone and Metoclopramide in Gastroparesis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Drugs in R&D · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- Association between Domperidone Administered via Feeding Tube and Feeding Success in Critically Ill Patients with Enteral Feeding Intolerance.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Apomorphine for Parkinson's Disease: Efficacy and Safety of Current and New Formulations.CNS drugs · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
European Medicines Agency (EMA) issued a final decision on September 01, 2014 that restricts the maximum daily dose of domperidone to 30 mg and treatment duration to 7 days. This paper presents a critical review of the scientific basis of the literatures having a role in the decision of EMA on domperidone with an approach based on statistical and epidemiological perspective. Although observational studies used by EMA were published, the EMA didn't use an algorithm including "randomized clinical trials" according to evidence-based medicine when presenting their results. In conclusion, the results obtained from published studies are controversial, especially for the bias. From these publications, it cannot be concluded that domperidone exposure definitely increases the risk of "sudden cardiac death", "death associated with ventricular arrhythmia" or "ventricular arrhythmia" The most concrete result of these studies is that the risk is higher with metoclopramide exposure compared to domperidone exposure.
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.