ArticleClinical drug investigation2026
Recommendations on Drug Selection and Dose Adjustment for Patients with Liver Cirrhosis: Results from a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2026. 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.
- Menopausal Hormone Therapy in Clinically Vulnerable Women: A Narrative Review of Guidelines and Real-World Evidence.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesLiver cirrhosis profoundly alters pharmacokinetics and is frequently associated with medication-related problems. Stage-specific dosing guidance remains inconsistent, and prescribing information often lacks clarity. As a result, treatment decisions rely on individual clinical judgement and may differ between professional groups. This study assessed drug-selection and dose-adjustment practices among hepatologists, clinical pharmacologists, and clinical pharmacists, quantified consensus across Child-Pugh stages, and evaluated alignment with prescribing information as a basis for harmonised dosing guidance.
methodsTwelve experts from hepatology, clinical pharmacology, and clinical pharmacy evaluated prioritised drugs for patients with liver cirrhosis across Child-Pugh stages A-C in a structured survey. For each drug, experts indicated whether they would apply no dose adjustment, modify the dose, or avoid administration. Consensus was defined as at least 75% agreement, and interrater agreement was assessed by pairwise percentage agreement. Consensus recommendations were compared with the dosing information provided in each drug's Summary of Product Characteristics.
resultsConsensus or strong consensus was achieved for only 20% of 177 recommendations, mainly for no dose adjustment or avoidance. Agreement decreased with disease severity (Child-Pugh A 83%; B 47%; C 41%). Of 36 consensus recommendations, 18 matched the summary of product characteristics, while six diverged from it. Pharmacists and clinical pharmacologists more often recommended dose adjustments, especially in Child-Pugh B and C, whereas hepatologists preferred standard dosing or avoidance.
conclusionsExpert recommendations for dosing in cirrhosis showed marked variability and limited concordance with prescribing information, underscoring the need for harmonised interdisciplinary guidance integrating pharmacokinetic evidence and clinical feasibility.
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.