ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2024
Perception of pharmacological equivalence of generics or biosimilars in healthcare professionals in Vienna.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Rheumatology nurses' perspectives of automatic substitution of biological medicines in community pharmacies and its safety: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Biological Medicines, Biosimilars and Their Automatic Substitution: Concerns, Knowledge and Information Needs of People with Diabetes.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2026Article
- Assessing Nurses' Knowledge and Attitudes Towards Biosimilars: Results from a National Survey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDue to constantly rising therapy costs, biosimilars and generic drugs have gained tremendous importance through recent decades. Nevertheless, the acceptance among healthcare workers regarding biosimilars and generic drugs in previously published international studies is considerably lower than the scientific data on equivalent safety and efficacy would suggest. The aim of this questionnaire-based survey was to determine the perception and knowledge regarding generic drugs and biosimilars by medical professionals from different healthcare facilities in Vienna, Austria.
methodsThe online questionnaire was sent to public and religious hospitals in Vienna, including the university hospital "Vienna General Hospital." In addition, doctors' offices were reached by sending out the questionnaire in the weekly news of the Vienna Medical Association.
resultsA total of 282 physicians and 311 graduated nurses took part in the study. 63% and 62% of the participants were convinced that generic respective biosimilar drugs were clinically equivalent to the original reference drug. On average, 1.6 out of 4 knowledge questions were answered correctly about generics, while only 0.87 out of 4 questions were answered accurately about biosimilars.
conclusionThe results of this study support the outcome from previous surveys demonstrating that a large proportion of healthcare professionals is still skeptical about generics and biosimilars. According to the results of this study, better education of the medical staff might ensure greater acceptance of these types of drugs.
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.