ArticleJournal of postgraduate medicine2026
A cross-sectional study on perceptions and barriers regarding therapeutic drug monitoring services in a tertiary care hospital.
Article in Journal of postgraduate medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractThe study aimed to assess clinicians' perceptions regarding therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), including perceived need, lacunae, extent of utilization, and barriers to TDM services in a tertiary care teaching hospital in Nagpur. We conducted a cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study among clinicians directly involved in patient care after obtaining institutional ethics committee approval. Clinicians were approached to obtain written or electronic consent. The questionnaire consisted of 18 structured, close-ended questions. Responses were collected using a three-point Likert scale, yes/no, or multiple-choice questions. The questionnaire demonstrated good reliability, with a Cohen's kappa index of 0.7, a scale-level content validity index of 0.82, and a Pearson's r value of 0.9 on test-retest reliability. The study included 75 clinicians. Among the total participants, only 36% ( n = 27) reported prior use of TDM services in clinical practice; 93.33% ( n = 70) agreed that TDM can be used to optimize drug exposure, and 96% ( n = 72) agreed that pharmacokinetic parameters are affected by concomitant medications and that TDM may prevent adverse drug reaction (ADR). Overall, 56% ( n = 42/75) reported a moderate level of awareness regarding TDM. Major barriers included limited awareness among clinicians (58.66%, n = 44), lack of practical experience (68%, n = 51), and lack of facilities (60%, n = 45). The findings of the present study highlight the need for the implementation of TDM services. While awareness regarding the role of TDM in optimizing drug exposure and preventing ADRs was high, important gaps were noted in the utilization of services, highlighting the need to facilitate education for healthcare professionals and to develop clear, evidence-based clinical guidelines to overcome the observed gaps.
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.