Evidence mapPaperPMID 31465123Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2020

Impact of medicines regulatory risk communications in the UK on prescribing and clinical outcomes: Systematic review, time series analysis and meta-analysis.

Christopher J Weatherburn, Bruce Guthrie, Tobias Dreischulte, Daniel R Morales

Erratum issuedAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Effect of pharmaceutical regulatory policy on health impact.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Christopher J WeatherburnGeneral Practitioner, Division of Population Health and Genomics, University of Dundee, UK.
Bruce GuthrieGeneral Practice, Centre for Population Health Sciences, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, UK.
Tobias DreischulteClinical Health Services Research, Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, University Hospital of Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany.
Daniel R MoralesDiscovery Fellow and General Practitioner, Division of Population Health and Genomics, University of Dundee, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0063-8069

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsRegulatory risk communications are important to ensure medication safety, but their impact is poorly understood. The aim was to quantify the impact of UK risk communications on medication use and other outcomes.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of studies reporting prescribing/health outcome data relevant to UK regulatory risk communication. Data were reanalysed using interrupted time series regression 12 months after each regulatory intervention. Mean changes were pooled using random-effects generic inverse variance examining the following subgroups: drug withdrawals; restrictions/changes in indications; be aware messages without specific recommendations for action; communication via direct healthcare practitioner communications; communication via drug bulletins.

resultsOf 11 466 articles screened, 40 studies examining 25 UK regulatory risk communications were included. Product withdrawals, restriction in indications and be aware communications were associated with relative mean changes of -78% (95% confidence interval [CI] -60 to -96%), -34% (95% confidence interval [CI] -12 to -55%) and -11% (95%CI -8 to -15%) in targeted drug prescribing respectively. Direct healthcare professional communications were associated with relative mean changes of -47% (95%CI -27 to -68%) compared to -13% (95%CI -6 to -20%) for drug bulletins. Of 7 studies examining unique health outcomes related to the safety concern, risk communications were associated with a mean -10% (95%CI -3 to -16%) decrease in intended and a 7% (95%CI 4 to 10%) increase in unintended health outcomes. DISCUSSION: UK regulatory risk communications were associated with significant changes in targeted prescribing and potential changes in clinical outcomes. Further research is needed to systematically study the impact of regulatory interventions.

Indexed as

CommunicationResearch DesignHealth PersonnelHumansInterrupted Time Series AnalysisUnited Kingdomclinical pharmacologydrug regulationdrug safetyepidemiologypharmacovigilancepublic health

Identifiers

PMID31465123
PMCPMC7098864

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.