ArticleThe Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy2021
Article in The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundBiological assessment is an integral part of the diagnostic process that guides therapeutic management decisions. However, these analyses remain subject to interference from endogenous or exogenous factors, which may alter the results.
objectiveTo provide an up-to-date and comprehensive overview of the most commonly documented types of interference attributable to medications, to ensure reliable interpretation of test results and better management of patients. DATA SOURCES: This comprehensive systematic review of the literature was carried out in 2018. The bibliographic search was carried out in various online databases, specifically PubMed, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar. STUDY SELECTION: Only publications in French or English concerning medicinal products for human use were retained. The investigators' examination of drug-related interference with laboratory tests was limited to blood assays (serum or plasma). DATA EXTRACTION: An Excel spreadsheet was used to analyze the results. A total of 82 articles were selected. The interferences studied affected 47 biological parameters corresponding to various types of assessment: hormonal, hepatic, and renal. DATA SYNTHESIS: The mechanisms reported in the literature identified were analytical (56.9%), physiological (17.82%), and pharmacological (20.11%). The remainder of the mechanisms (5.17%) were not defined.
conclusionsClinicians should be vigilant in validating and interpreting laboratory test results for patients receiving these types of drugs. Dialogue between clinicians and biological scientists is the best way to avoid unnecessary additional testing, which is often cumbersome and costly.
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.