Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31938856›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2020

WHO guide to good prescribing is 25 years old: quo vadis?

J Tichelaar, M C Richir, S Garner, H Hogerzeil, Th P G M de Vries

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. What should be updated in the WHO guide to good prescribing?European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Non-dispensed prescriptions - A nationwide descriptive study.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2024
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. EurOPEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

J TichelaarResearch and Expertise Center In Pharmacotherapy Education (RECIPE), Amsterdam, the Netherlands. j.tichelaar@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7485-9219
M C RichirResearch and Expertise Center In Pharmacotherapy Education (RECIPE), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
S GarnerWHO, Health Technologies and Pharmaceuticals Programme, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark.
H HogerzeilDepartment of Health Sciences Global Health, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Th P G M de VriesResearch and Expertise Center In Pharmacotherapy Education (RECIPE), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTwenty-five years ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) published the Guide to Good Prescribing (GGP), followed by the accompanying Teacher's Guide to Good Prescribing (TGGP). The GGP is based on a normative 6-step model for therapeutic reasoning and prescribing, and provides a six-step guide for students to the process of rational prescribing.

methodWe reviewed the need to update both WHO publications by evaluating their use and impact, including new (theoretical) insights and demands. Based on information from literature, Internet, and other (personal) sources, we draw the following conclusions.

results1. An update of the GGP and TGGP, both in terms of content and form, is necessary because of the current need for these tools (irrational medicine use and unavailability of medicines), the lack of similar documents, and the lack of connection with recent developments, such as Internet and modern education; 2. The basic (6-step) model of the GGP is effective in terms of rational prescribing in the undergraduate situation and is still consistent with current theories about (context) learning, clinical decision-making, and clinical practice; 3. The dissemination and introduction of the GGP and TGGP in education has been successful so far, but is still not optimal because of lack of support and cooperation.

conclusionsOn the basis of the evaluation results, a plan for the revision of the GGP and TGGP is presented.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicClinical Decision-MakingDrug PrescriptionsEducation, MedicalPharmacology, ClinicalProblem-Based LearningWorld Health OrganizationClinical pharmacologyEducationGuide to good prescribingPharmacotherapyRational prescribingWHO 6 step

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.