ReviewCureus2025
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Biosimilars Among Pharmacists and Physicians in Saudi Arabia: A Scoping Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biosimilars were introduced in medical practice in recent years. The introduction of biosimilars aimed to provide more cost-effective treatment and improve patients' access to effective treatment. These drugs have recently been approved for use in Saudi Arabia. To optimize utilization of such medications, healthcare providers should be knowledgeable and have a positive perspective toward biosimilars. This scoping review aims to explore the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of pharmacists and physicians in Saudi Arabia regarding biosimilars. The scoping review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol. The databases searched for this review included PubMed, MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database), Scopus, and Google Scholar, covering relevant studies published between 2015 and 2024. A total of 59 studies were identified, and 10 met the inclusion criteria. The findings from the review revealed that approximately 48%-70% showed adequate knowledge of biosimilars. More than 60% showed a positive attitude among practitioners. Adoption was associated with familiarity with clinical evidence, specialty (e.g., oncology, gastroenterology, endocrinology), and clarity of regulatory guidance. The review identified gaps in regulatory knowledge and highlighted that targeted educational programs and policy interventions are needed to improve biosimilar adoption in clinical practice in Saudi Arabia.
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.