Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34827267›Full record

ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Clinically Relevant Interactions with Anti-Infectives on Intensive Care Units-A Multicenter Delphi Study.

Joachim Andreas Koeck, Heike Hilgarth, Andreas von Ameln-Mayerhofer, Damaris Meyn, Ruediger Warlich, Andreas Münstedt, Dagmar Horn, Christina König

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. 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
–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

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

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. A comprehensive review on pharmacological applications and drug-induced toxicity of valproic acid.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023
    Review
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

8 authors.

Joachim Andreas KoeckCommittee for Intensive Care Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, German Association of Hospital Pharmacists (ADKA), 10559 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0101-2102
Heike HilgarthCommittee for Intensive Care Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, German Association of Hospital Pharmacists (ADKA), 10559 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4126-4251
Andreas von Ameln-MayerhoferCommittee for Intensive Care Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, German Association of Hospital Pharmacists (ADKA), 10559 Berlin, Germany.
Damaris MeynCommittee for Intensive Care Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, German Association of Hospital Pharmacists (ADKA), 10559 Berlin, Germany.
Ruediger WarlichCommittee for Intensive Care Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, German Association of Hospital Pharmacists (ADKA), 10559 Berlin, Germany.
Andreas MünstedtHospital Pharmacy, University Hospital Muenster, 48149 Muenster, Germany.
Dagmar HornCommittee for Intensive Care Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, German Association of Hospital Pharmacists (ADKA), 10559 Berlin, Germany.
Christina KönigCommittee for Intensive Care Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, German Association of Hospital Pharmacists (ADKA), 10559 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3354-3496

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at high risk of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) due to polypharmacy. Little is known about type and frequency of DDIs within German ICUs. Clinical pharmacists' interventions (PI) recorded in a national database (ADKA-DokuPIK) were filtered for ICU patients. Binary DDIs involving ≥1 anti-infective agent with >1 database entry were selected. A modified two-step Delphi process with a group of senior hospital pharmacists was employed to evaluate selected DDIs for clinical relevance by using a five-point scale and to develop guidance for clinical practice. In total, 16,173 PI were recorded, including 1836 (11%) DDIs in the ICU setting. Of the latter, 41% (756/1836) included ≥1 anti-infective agent, 32% (590/1836) were binary DDIs, and 25% (455/1836) were listed at least twice. This translates into 88 different DDIs, 74% (65/88) of which were rated as being clinically relevant by our expert panel. The majority of DDIs (76% [67/88]) included macrolides, antifungals, or fluoroquinolones. This percentage was even higher in DDIs being rated as clinically relevant by the experts (85% [55/65]). It is noted that an inter-professional discussion and approach is needed in the individual patient management of DDIs. The guidance developed might be a tool for decision support.

Indexed as

clinical pharmacycritical care pharmacistdrug–drug interactionsintensive care unit

Identifiers

PMID34827267
PMCPMC8614667

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.