ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2026
Roles and perceived responsibilities of investigators and pharmacists in the monitoring of drug-drug interactions in clinical trials - a mixed methods study.
Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To explore the roles and perceived responsibilities of clinical investigators and pharmacists in the monitoring of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between study medication and concomitant medication in clinical trials. Secondly, sharing of information on study medication treatment with community and hospital outpatient pharmacies was investigated. Methods: We performed a mixed methods study comprising qualitative semi-structured interviews with clinical investigators and online questionnaires among hospital pharmacists and community and hospital outpatient pharmacists. Results: Interviews with investigators show they generally consider the current way of DDI monitoring in trials to be adequate. However, they emphasized the need to better define responsibilities and further digitalize monitoring. A total of 43 responses were received from hospital pharmacists (response rate: 62.3% [43/69]). One response was excluded because the hospital did not dispense any study medication. Approximately half of the hospital pharmacists (45.2%, [19/42]) routinely conduct DDI monitoring with concomitant medication when dispensing study medication for patients enrolled in clinical trials. A total of 49 responses were received from community and outpatient pharmacists. Most of the responding pharmacists (44/49 [89.8%]) had been informed about study medication use by a patient in the preceding year. Community and outpatient pharmacists however noted that background information on potential DDIs with study medication is often lacking (19/44 [43.2%]). Conclusion: Our study highlights critical gaps in the management of DDIs related to the use of study medication with concomitant medication. Clearer allocation of responsibilities, improved digital integration, and sharing of study medication related information may strengthen clinical trial data validity and improve patient safety.
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.