ArticlePharmacy practice
Prevalence of tablet splitting in a Brazilian tertiary care hospital.
Article in Pharmacy practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough a highly common practice in hospital care, tablet splitting can cause dose variation and reduce drug stability, both of which impair drug therapy.
objectiveTo determine the overall prevalence of tablet splitting in hospital care as evidence supporting the rational prescription of split tablets in hospitals.
methodsData collected from inpatients' prescriptions were analyzed using descriptive statistics and used to calculate the overall prevalence of tablet splitting and the percentage of split tablets that had at least one lower-strength tablet available on the market. The associations between the overall prevalence and gender, age, and hospital unit of patients were also assessed. The results of laboratory tests, performed with a commercial splitter, allowed the calculation of the mass loss, mass variation, and friability of the split tablets.
resultsThe overall prevalence of tablet splitting was 4.5%, and 78.5% of tablets prescribed to be split had at least one lower-strength tablet on the market. The prevalence of tablet splitting was significantly associated with the patient's age and hospital unit. Laboratory tests revealed mean values of mass loss and variation of 8.7% (SD 1.8) and 11.7% (SD 2.3), respectively, both of which were significantly affected by the presence of coating and scoreline. Data from laboratory tests indicated that the quality of 12 of the 14 tablets deviated in at least one parameter examined.
conclusionsThe high percentage of unnecessary tablet splitting suggests that more regular, rational updates of the hospital's list of standard medicines are needed. Also, inappropriate splitting behavior suggests the need to develop tablets with functional scores.
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.