ArticleFuture healthcare journal2023
Animal-derived medicinal products: community representatives' views of their use.
Article in Future healthcare journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Side Effect: Immuno-Ethical Risk Analysis of Animal-Derived Ingredients in Pharmaceuticals.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Review
- Islamic reasoning and the use of prohibited medicines among Muslim patients: a qualitative study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Animal-derived ingredients in medicines: a framework for ethical prescribing practices.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the UK, there are a variety of religious or cultural beliefs and preferences that guide people in a range of lifestyle decisions. This qualitative study aimed to better understand the views of the public around prescribing animal-derived products, in particular low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), from a potential patient perspective. A series of quality improvement focus groups with stakeholders were undertaken to understand perceptions and to evaluate and inform an established treatment pathway. Stakeholders discussed finding out about the porcine nature of LMWH asking 'Why don't they tell us?', suggesting that they 'shouldn't have to give out clues' about their personal preferences. Participants' thoughts about 'how' information be provided, by 'whom' and 'when' were gained. The stakeholders indicated that current practice is unacceptable for patients. They require greater knowledge and transparency regarding product components and recommend that healthcare professionals provide more dialogue and choice to patients.
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.