ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Physicians' and pharmacists' perspective on clarity and clinical relevance of absolute contraindications in "Summaries of Product Characteristics".
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and analysis of a SmPC-based machine-readable dataset of contraindications for clinical decision support and real-world data analysis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Physicians' and pharmacists' perspective on clarity and clinical relevance of absolute contraindications in "Summaries of Product Characteristics".British journal of clinical 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsPrevious work has identified several limitations in "Summaries of Product Characteristics" (SmPCs), which are associated with risks for patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate pharmacists' and physicians' interpretation of contraindications in SmPCs and reasons for their nonadherence in clinical routine.
methodsFor 20 commonly missed or ignored absolute contraindications, an anonymous online survey providing 24 clinical example cases (one or two per contraindication) for physicians and pharmacists was developed. Experts in medication safety were asked whether the respective case fulfilled the definition of the contraindication in the SmPC: (a) formally, irrespective of the clinical relevance of the contraindication (17 cases), and (b) whether the contraindication was deemed clinically relevant in each respective case (24 cases).
resultsTwenty-seven pharmacists and 27 physicians completed the survey. For only one case (1/17; 5.8%) did all experts agree on the same answer option regarding the formal fulfilment of a given contraindication statement. Experts gave heterogeneous answers regarding the interpretation of a contraindication. For instance, among 10 predefined answer options for the contraindication "active liver disease" in the SmPC of simvastatin, every option was selected by at least six experts. In 17/24 (70.8%) clinical example cases a majority of experts agreed on the clinical relevance of a given contraindication. Key reasons for nonadherence to contraindications were "patient monitoring possible", "lack of alternative treatment" and "acute/severe situations".
conclusionsExperts' disagreement on the interpretation of contraindications in SmPCs using clinical example cases indicates that further efforts are needed to improve their usability in clinical routine.
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.