Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32499701›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2020

The Development of Practice Recommendations for Drug-Disease Interactions by Literature Review and Expert Opinion.

Justine M Z van Tongeren, S Froukje Harkes-Idzinga, Heleen van der Sijs, Roya Atiqi, Bart J F van den Bemt, L Willem Draijer, Deline Hiel, Adrian Kerremans, Bart Kremers, Marc de Leeuw and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

17 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Justine M Z van TongerenDepartment of Clinical Decision Support, Health Base Foundation, Houten, Netherlands.
S Froukje Harkes-IdzingaMedicines Information Centre, Royal Dutch Pharmacists Association (KNMP), The Hague, Netherlands.
Heleen van der SijsDepartment of Hospital Pharmacy, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Roya AtiqiDepartment of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Bart J F van den BemtDepartment of Pharmacy, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
L Willem DraijerHuisartsenpraktijk Bij de Haven, Nijkerk, Netherlands.
Deline HielDepartment of Hospital Pharmacy, Alrijne Zorggroep, Leiden, Netherlands.
Adrian KerremansIndependent Researcher, Helmond, Netherlands.
Bart KremersRavenstein apotheek, Ravenstein, Netherlands.
Marc de LeeuwMedicines Information Centre, Royal Dutch Pharmacists Association (KNMP), The Hague, Netherlands.
Marleen V OlthoffDepartment of Clinical Decision Support, Health Base Foundation, Houten, Netherlands.
T Kim-Loan PhamDepartment of Clinical Decision Support, Health Base Foundation, Houten, Netherlands.
Ricky Valentijn-RobertzDe Vijverapotheek, Nieuwkoop, Netherlands.
Kayan TsoiDepartment of Clinical Decision Support, Health Base Foundation, Houten, Netherlands.
Iris WichersDepartment of Guideline Development and Research, Dutch College of General Practitioners, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Maaike de WitMedicines Information Centre, Royal Dutch Pharmacists Association (KNMP), The Hague, Netherlands.
Sander D BorgsteedeDepartment of Clinical Decision Support, Health Base Foundation, Houten, Netherlands.
Royal Dutch Pharmacists Association · NLErasmus MC · NLAlrijne Ziekenhuis · NLDutch College of General Practitioners · NLGemeente Helmond · NLHuisarts en Wetenschap · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDrug-disease interactions negatively affect the benefit/risk ratio of drugs for specific populations. In these conditions drugs should be avoided, adjusted, or accompanied by extra monitoring. The motivation for many drug-disease interactions in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) is sometimes insufficiently supported by (accessible) evidence. As a consequence the translation of SmPC to clinical practice may lead to non-specific recommendations. For the translation of this information to the real world, it is necessary to evaluate the available knowledge about drug-disease interactions, and to formulate specific recommendations for prescribers and pharmacists. The aim of this paper is to describe a standardized method how to develop practice recommendations for drug-disease interactions by literature review and expert opinion.

methodsThe development of recommendations for drug-disease interactions will follow a six-step plan involving a multidisciplinary expert panel (1). The scope of the drug-disease interaction will be specified by defining the disease and by describing relevant effects of this drug-disease interaction. Drugs possibly involved in this drug-disease interaction are selected by checking the official product information, literature, and expert opinion (2). Evidence will be collected from the official product information, guidelines, handbooks, and primary literature (3). Study characteristics and outcomes will be evaluated and presented in standardized reports, including preliminary conclusions on the clinical relevance and practice recommendations (4). The multidisciplinary expert panel will discuss the reports and will either adopt or adjust the conclusions (5). Practice recommendations will be integrated in clinical decision support systems and published (6). The results of the evaluated drug-disease interactions will remain up-to-date by screening new risk information, periodic literature review, and (re)assessments initiated by health care providers. ACTIONABLE RECOMMENDATIONS: The practice recommendations will result in advices for specific DDSI. The content and considerations of these DDSIs will be published and implemented in all Clinical Decision Support Systems in the Netherlands. DISCUSSION: The recommendations result in professional guidance in the context of individual patient care. The professional will be supported in the decision making in concerning pharmacotherapy for the treatment of a medical problem, and the clinical risks of the proposed medication in combination with specific diseases.

Indexed as

clinical decision supportdrug-disease interactionsexpert opinionliterature reviewpractice recommendationsstudy protocol

Identifiers

PMID32499701
PMCPMC7243438
OpenAlexW3025249488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.