ArticleNorthern clinics of Istanbul2024
Drug utilization studies in Turkiye: A systematic review.
Article in Northern clinics of Istanbul, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Systematic review of survey/questionnaire-based drug utilization studies in Turkiye.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2024Article
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
objectiveDrug utilization studies (DUS) provide a framework for drug utilization at the national or targeted population level and important information on unmet medical needs, particularly in assessing the rationality of drug use. We aimed to systematically review DUS conducted in Turkiye.
methodsWe examined 162 DUS with an accessible full-text, published as "research articles" and conducted in Turkiye between 2000 and 2021 using medical records and prescription data. We included English or Turkish papers with English abstracts. We examined the scientific characteristics of the publications, source of the data, place/time of collection, research designs, and studied drug groups.
resultsWe found that 79.6% of articles were in English, 45.1% were listed in SCI/SCIE, and 63.0% were on the WOS platform with 3.5 (interquartile range: 1-15) citations. The mean study period and publication time were 2.9±3.1 and 2.9±2.1 years, respectively. The highest number of studies (17.9%) were published in 2021 and (26.5%) were conducted nationwide. We identified that 93.8% of the studies had retrospective design, 67.8% were conducted in secondary/tertiary health-care institutions, and 54.9% used direct hospital data. We detected that 68.5% of the studies were conducted on the general population, 19.1% on adults, 12.4% on children, and 44.4% were antibiotic oriented.
conclusionOur study showed that a significant portion of the DUS, the trend of which has gained momentum in recent years, was antibiotic focused and conducted with a retrospective design from hospital-based data collected on the general patient population. This situation points to the necessity of expanding the existing DUS range by effectively using the new advantages provided by medical record databases and conducting more DUS that can provide critical clues for specific patients and drug groups.
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.