Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9098659›Full record

ReviewDrugs1997

The System of Objectified Judgement Analysis (SOJA). A tool in rational drug selection for formulary inclusion.

R Janknegt, A Steenhoek

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. A mixed methods approach (EXPANS) to assess current and future uses of antimicrobials: a case study of ceftaroline.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. An innovative tool to prioritize the assessment of investigational COVID-19 therapeutics: A pilot project.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2024
    Article
  3. How to select a best-value biological medicine? A practical model to support hospital pharmacists.American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

R JanknegtMaasland Ziekenhuis, Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Sittard, The Netherlands.
A Steenhoek

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rational drug selection for formulary purposes is important. Besides rational selection criteria, other factors play a role in drug decision making, such as emotional, personal financial and even unconscious criteria. It is agreed that these factors should be excluded as much as possible in the decision making process. A model for drug decision making for formulary purposes is described, the System of Objectified Judgement Analysis (SOJA). In the SOJA method, selection criteria for a given group of drugs are prospectively defined and the extent to which each drug fulfils the requirements for each criterion is determined. Each criterion is given a relative weight, i.e. the more important a given selection criterion is considered, the higher the relative weight. Both the relative scores for each drug per selection criterion and the relative weight of each criterion are determined by a panel of experts in this field. The following selection criteria are applied in all SOJA scores: clinical efficacy, incidence and severity of adverse effects, dosage frequency, drug interactions, acquisition cost, documentation, pharmacokinetics and pharmaceutical aspects. Besides these criteria, group specific criteria are also used, such as development of resistance when a SOJA score was made for antimicrobial agents. The relative weight that is assigned to each criterion will always be a subject of discussion. Therefore, interactive software programs for use on a personal computer have been developed, in which the user of the system may enter their own personal relative weight to each selection criterion and make their own personal SOJA score. The main advantage of the SOJA method is that all nonrational selection criteria are excluded and that drug decision making is based solely on rational criteria. The use of the interactive SOJA discs makes the decision process fully transparent as it becomes clear on which criteria and weighting decisions are based. We have seen that the use of this method for drug decision making greatly aids the discussion in the formulary committee, as discussion becomes much more concrete. The SOJA method is time dependent. Documentation on most products is still increasing and the score for this criterion will therefore change continuously. New products are introduced and prices are also subject to change. To overcome the time-dependence of the SOJA method, regular updates of interactive software programs are being made, in which changes in acquisition cost, documentation or a different weighting of criteria are included, as well as newly introduced products. The possibility of changing the official acquisition cost into the actual purchasing costs for the hospital in question provides a tailor-made interactive program.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesChemistry, PharmaceuticalDrug TherapyHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.