ArticleTranslational and clinical pharmacology2021
Medication selection for the treatment of acute infective diarrhea in Thai pharmacies: a qualitative study.
Article in Translational and clinical pharmacology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
World Health Organization (WHO) released the treatment manual of diarrhea in 2005. We aimed to investigate the rationale for selecting medications for acute infective diarrhea in Thai community pharmacies and to see if the selection complied with the WHO manual. A theoretical 18-year-old patient with acute infective diarrhea was used for interviews. The protocol and materials for the research were approved by Institutional Review Board. A total of 30 drugstore personnel were selected by convenience sampling and included. The first author manually coded, extracted for themes, and translated the transcript. Participants did not dispense oral rehydration salt because of the feeling that diarrhea was not severe. Absorbents were dispensed because they were perceived as the first-line medication for noninfective or mild diarrhea. Antibiotics were dispensed because of the concerns for the prognosis and the expected patient pressure. None provided zinc to the patient because of the lack of knowledge of the indication of zinc. We found that dispensing for acute infective diarrhea in Thai drugstores deviated from the WHO treatment guideline. The reasons were that the pharmacy personnel were not practicing evidence-based medicine, the lack of knowledge, the patient pressure, the unavailability of products, and the perceived availability of information in local guidelines.
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.