ArticlePloS one2019
Are patients with a nasally placed feeding tube at risk of potential drug-drug interactions? A multicentre cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe primary aims were to determine the rate of potential drug-drug interactions (pDDIs) in patients with nasally placed feeding tubes (NPFT) and the factors significantly associated with pDDIs. The secondary aim was to assess the change in pDDIs for patients between admission and discharge. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis multicentre study applied a cross-sectional design and was conducted in six Brazilian hospitals, from October 2016 to July 2018. Data from patients with NPFT were collected through electronic forms. All regular medications prescribed were recorded. Medications were classified according to the World Health Organization (WHO) Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical code. Drug-drug interaction screening software was used to screen patients' medications for pDDIs. Negative binomial regression was used to account for the over dispersed nature of the pDDI count. Since the number of pDDIs was closely related to the number of prescribed medications, we modelled the rate of pDDIs with the count of pDDIs as the numerator and the number of prescribed medications as the denominator; six variables were considered for inclusion: time (admission or discharge), patient age, patient gender, age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score, type of prescription (electronic or handwritten) and patient care complexity. To account for correlation within the two time points (admission and discharge) for each patient a generalised estimating equations approach was used to adjust the standard error estimates. To test the change in pDDI rate between admission and discharge a full model of six variables was fitted to generate an adjusted estimate.
resultsIn this study, 327 patients were included. At least one pDDI was found in more than 91% of patients on admission and discharge and most of these pDDIs were classified as major severity. Three factors were significantly associated with the rate of pDDIs per medication: patient age, patient care complexity and prescription type (handwritten vs electronic). There was no evidence of a difference in pDDI rate between admission and discharge.
conclusionPatients with a NPFT are at high risk of pDDIs. Drug interaction screening tools and computerized clinical decision support systems could be effective risk mitigation strategies for this patient group.
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.