ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2026
Drug Critical Limits for Urgent Physician Notification.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Critical limits represent quantitative decision thresholds for drugs that require immediate clinician notification and potential life-saving intervention. United States hospitals lack a national standard for drug critical limits. We collected critical limits from 417 US hospitals across all 50 states and Washington, D.C.; of these, 411 maintained drug critical limit lists. We classified hospitals by US Census division and network-affiliated vs. independent status. We applied non-parametric statistical analyses, examined critical limits for 111 drugs, and observed significant inter-institutional variability. Listing frequencies were highest for digoxin 99.8% (410/411), theophylline 72.3% (297/411), lithium 94.9% (390/411), and acetaminophen 86.9% (357/411). Non-therapeutic measurands also appeared, led by ethanol 47.2% (194/411). Kruskal-Wallis analysis revealed highly significant differences (P < 0.01) across census divisions. Mann-Whitney U analysis comparing network vs. independent hospitals yielded significant differences (P < 0.05) in 16 analytes. Qualitative critical values were listed for volatile alcohols and methotrexate. All digoxin critical limits exceeded levels associated with increased hazard ratios. Only 33.9% of hospitals aligned with consensus guidelines for acetaminophen poisoning. Vancomycin and aminoglycoside critical limits showed wide ranges, overlapping peaks and troughs, and random values inconsistently aligned with peak and troughs. Immunosuppressant critical limits often exceeded thresholds associated with toxicity. Psychotropic drugs, including antiepileptics, tricyclic antidepressants, and lithium, demonstrated variability and misalignment relative to consensus guidelines. Drugs of abuse did not appear in critical notification lists. Results provide hospitals with references that will enhance hospital notification practices and patient safety. We encourage sharing of critical notification lists to foster future research efforts and enhance standards of care.
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.