ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Consistency and clarity of pharmacogenomic guidance in UK medicine patient information leaflets: A cross-sectional analysis.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 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.
- Consistency and clarity of pharmacogenomic guidance in UK medicine patient information leaflets: A cross-sectional analysis.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Pharmacogenomic (PGx) information has the potential to support the safe and effective use of medicines, yet there is uncertainty about how this information can be best communicated to patients. Summaries of product characteristics (SmPCs) and patient information leaflets (PILs) for all UK-approved medicines with strong evidence supporting a PGx prescribing recommendation (CPIC Levels A or provisional A/B) were reviewed, using keyword searches to identify relevant content and estimating the reading age of PGx information in PILs using the Flesch-Kincaid grade level. Among 353 products, 281 (80%) SmPCs contained PGx information, but this was reflected in only 115 (33%) PILs. Where present, the PGx content in PILs required an average reading age of 19.1 years, far exceeding the typical UK reading age of 9-11 years. As the availability of genomic data becomes increasingly routine, the variable PGx information provided in PILs risks undermining patient understanding, engagement and safe personalized prescribing.
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.