ArticleNorthern clinics of Istanbul2024
Systematic review of survey/questionnaire-based drug utilization studies in Turkiye.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveDrug utilization studies (DUS), providing insights into various aspects of pharmacoepidemiology from prescribing to medication use, can be conducted through real-world data from health records and survey-based data. In this study, we aimed to describe survey/questionnaire-based DUS conducted in Turkiye.
methodsWe searched online databases for the most frequently used keywords in DUS from January 1993 till May 2023 and identified 180 survey-based DUS conducted in Turkiye. We described DUS by their populations, sociodemographic characteristics, timeframe, setting and provinces, data collection method, medication categories, and article-specific variables were evaluated.
resultsWe identified that 68.3% of the DUS were in English and 91.7% were indexed in Web of Science (median 1 [interquartile range: 1-2] citation). We found that 21.7% of the articles (n=39) had pharmacology affiliation. Adults are the target population in 37.8% of the studies and age and gender were not reported in 27.2% and 16.7%, respectively. The response rate was not stated in 55.0%. We determined that 48.3% of the studies were focused on a single medication/medication group. The mean time from data collection to publication was 2.5±1.9 years, and the highest number of articles (10.6%) were published in 2021.
conclusionOur systematic review shows that the majority of DUS were listed in well-known international indices, suggesting that our local studies invoke global interest and hold a valuable position in health research. Nevertheless, lack of reporting of methodological characteristics in substantial part of the studies can be considered an important room for improvement of DUS.
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.