ArticleBasic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology2025
Questions in Healthcare Specifically Related to the Discipline of Pharmacy: A Descriptive Analysis of Queries to Drug Information Centres in Sweden.
Article in Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology, 2025. 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.
- Questions in Healthcare Specifically Related to the Discipline of Pharmacy: A Descriptive Analysis of Queries to Drug Information Centres in Sweden.Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Queries from healthcare professionals to drug information centres may represent drug-related aspects of importance in healthcare. In this study, queries and replies from all drug information centres in Sweden, published on svelic.se (January 2023 to May 2024) and specifically related to the discipline of pharmacy, were explored. Pharmaceutical queries were defined in an iterative process starting with seven definitions of 'pharmacy' and independent assessments by two assessors. Three categories emerged: galenic queries, lookup queries and pharmacy practice queries. Out of 767 studied queries, 60 (8%) were categorised as pharmaceutical (kappa: 0.84), distributed across galenic (n = 46), lookup (n = 12) and pharmacy practice queries (n = 2). Galenic queries primarily concerned crushing or splitting of medications (n = 13), alternative routes of administration (n = 12) or compatibility (n = 10). Out of 21 drugs asked about in crushing/splitting-related queries, six lacked information in the national Medication Crushing Database. Out of nine specific drug pairs asked about in compatibility queries, two were incompatible, and information regarding seven was not obtainable from the national Pharmaceutical Compatibility Database. In conclusion, almost one tenth of queries to drug information centres in Sweden, recorded on svelic.se, were specifically pharmaceutical. The requested information was often for crushing/splitting-related queries, and seldom for compatibility queries, accessible from the knowledge resources.
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.