Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39531042›Full record

ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2025

The decline in the clinical relevance of pilocarpine and physostigmine monitored in pharmacology textbooks from 1878 to 2023: nine take-home messages for future (pharmacology) textbook authors.

Laureen Ludwig, Roland Seifert

Abstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pharmacological assessment of drugs retained in the 1Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. How pharmacology can aid in the diagnosis of mental disorders.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Laureen LudwigInstitute of Pharmacology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, Hannover, 30625, Germany.
Roland SeifertInstitute of Pharmacology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, Hannover, 30625, Germany. seifert.roland@mh-hannover.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In a recent study, using hydrogen cyanide as paradigm, we have shown that pharmacological knowledge evolves non-linearly ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38900251/ ). The aim of this study was to investigate the changes in the presentation of the drugs pilocarpine and physostigmine in textbooks from 1878 to 2023. The categories of structure, molecular mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, effects, indications, adverse drug reactions, interactions, and contraindications were evaluated. The pharmacological knowledge on the molecular mechanism, chemical structure, and pharmacokinetics of pilocarpine and physostigmine changed the most during the period of 150 years. Until 1944, textbooks did not mention a molecular mechanism of action of pilocarpine and from 1951 onwards they described the activation of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors as the molecular basis of pilocarpine's effect. Until 1944, most textbooks on physostigmine also did not mention the molecular mechanism of action. From 1951 onwards, the reversible inhibition of acetylcholinesterase is mentioned as the mechanism of action of physostigmine. In contrast, in the categories effects, indications, adverse drug reactions, interactions, and contraindications, the detected changes in the pharmacological knowledge presented were comparatively smaller. Older pharmacology textbooks were better than newer ones at discussing changes in knowledge and scientific errors. We noted substantial differences in the presentation of pilocarpine and physostigmine among German and US pharmacology textbooks. We show a decline of the clinical relevance of both drugs and their presentation in pharmacological textbooks with physostigmine being virtually irrelevant. But modern textbooks still discuss physostigmine substantially, fitting to studies on the obsolete drug reserpine ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38103060/ ). Thus, textbooks often far lag clinical practice. Google Scholar conveys the incorrect impression that physostigmine is clinically more relevant than it is. An exponential decline in prescription numbers is a robust indicator of clinical obsolescence. From our study, we extract nine easily implementable take-home messages for future (pharmacology) textbook authors to ensure that this traditional teaching format will prevail against the competition of allegedly more "modern" teaching media.

Indexed as

Cholinesterase InhibitorsMuscarinic AgonistsPharmacologyPhysostigminePilocarpineTextbooks as TopicAnimalsClinical RelevanceHistory, 19th CenturyHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansCholinesterase InhibitorsMuscarinic AgonistsPhysostigminePilocarpineContent analysisDrugsHistory of pharmacologyPhysostigminePilocarpineTextbook analysis

Identifiers

PMID39531042
PMCPMC11985697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.