ArticleBasic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology2020
Drug information centre queries and responses about drug interactions over 10 years-A descriptive analysis.
Article in Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Placebo-Controlled Trials in the Management of Crohn's Disease: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical-Pharmacological Drug Information Center of Hannover Medical School: Update From a Tertiary Care University Hospital (2022-2024).Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026Article
- Questions in Healthcare Specifically Related to the Discipline of Pharmacy: A Descriptive Analysis of Queries to Drug Information Centres in Sweden.Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology · 2025Article
- Analysis of queries to a Swedish drug information centre identifies scientific knowledge gaps.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Molecular mechanisms underlying methotrexate-induced intestinal injury and protective strategies.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2024Review
- Clinical-pharmacological drug information center of Hannover Medical School: experiences and analysis from a tertiary care university hospital.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Drug interaction alerts in older primary care patients, and related medically justified actions.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
- Drug information centre queries and responses about drug interactions over 10 years-A descriptive analysis.Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology · 2020Article
- Safety and quality of AI chatbots for drug-related inquiries: A real-world comparison with licensed pharmacists.Digital healthArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
Many people are treated with ≥1 drug, implying that risks of drug interactions need to be considered. The aim of this study was to describe drug interaction queries from healthcare professionals to a drug information centre in Sweden over 10 years focusing on drugs frequently asked about and the advice provided. Advice was recorded in mutually exclusive groups: Avoid, Adjust dose, Separate intake, Vigilance or No problem. For queries with Avoid, Adjust dose or Separate intake advice, alerts were extracted from an interaction database (Janusmed). Of 4335 queries to the centre in 2008-2017, 589 (14%) concerned interactions. Most were posed by physicians (91%) and concerned a specific patient (83%) before treatment initiation (76%). Sertraline, warfarin and methotrexate were the most frequently asked about, whereas queries about cyclophosphamide and rifampicine occurred most often in relation to the number of exposed patients. Advice provided in 557 (95%) replies comprised Avoid: n = 85 (15%), Adjust dose: n = 57 (10%), Separate intake: n = 17 (3%), Vigilance: n = 235 (42%) or No problem: n = 163 (29%). In all, 113 (71%) of 159 queries with Avoid/Adjust dose/Separate intake advice elicited an action alert on Janusmed, whereas 31 (20%) did not result in any alert at all. Summarized, seven in ten replies from the drug information centre recommended an explicit drug treatment action, regarding either specific prescribing aspects, for instance dose adjustments, or active follow-up including monitoring potential adverse reactions and/or laboratory results. Readily accessible decision support regarding drug interactions often provides relevant action alerts, but cannot be solely relied on.
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.