ArticleDrugs in context2024
Assessment of knowledge, attitude and practice of fixed-dose combinations amongst attending physicians and residents: a cross-sectional evaluation.
Article in Drugs in context, 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.
- Fixed-Dose Combinations for Hypertension: Barriers to Use and Opportunities for Health Systems.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) were brought into the market with the intent of providing benefits primarily to patients and physicians. Nevertheless, despite their multiple advantages, they have their own set of drawbacks, especially regarding irrational FDCs. If physicians continue to prescribe them, prohibiting their sale would become all the more challenging. This cross-sectional survey study was planned to comprehend the level of knowledge, attitude and practice of physicians regarding such FDCs at a tertiary care teaching institute of western Uttar Pradesh, India. Methodology: A pre-validated questionnaire was communicated electronically to all the attending physicians. For data analysis, descriptive statistics were applied and a χ Results: Amongst the 108 respondents, participation was almost comparable from both medical and surgical branches, with most participants being junior residents (58%). Even with sound knowledge of FDCs, only 46.30% of them were aware of banned FDCs. Similarly, only 6.48% could correctly identify the disadvantages associated with the use of FDCs, and 33.18% could correctly recognize irrational FDCs. This finding was consistently reflected in their attitude and practice and only 15.74% of respondents cross-referenced FDCs with the available literature. Furthermore, despite 88.89% of respondents checking for rationality of FDCs before prescribing them, a compendium of irrational FDCs is routinely prescribed. Conclusion: To amend these shortcomings in prescribing of irrational FDCs, some recommendations are proposed by the authors herein.
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.