ArticlePerspectives in clinical research
An evaluation of medication appropriateness in pregnant women with coexisting illness in a tertiary care hospital.
Article in Perspectives in clinical research. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimPrescribing drugs during pregnancy needs careful consideration of benefit to the mother and risk to the fetus. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate the appropriateness of medications among pregnant women with coexisting illness in a tertiary care hospital, Western India. MATERIALS AND
methodsIt was a hospital-based cross-sectional study conducted in the obstetrics and gynecology department of a tertiary care hospital. The study was conducted over a period of 12 months wherein data from 800 pregnant women suffering from any co-existing illness and being prescribed any medication apart from routine supplementation were analyzed. The Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) was used to assess the appropriateness of medications. Higher MAI scores indicate more inappropriate prescribing.
resultsDrugs which were most inappropriately prescribed with the highest average MAI scores were albendazole, itraconazole, injection amikacin, oxcarbazepine, warfarin, domperidone, propylthiouracil, and combiflam (ibuprofen + paracetamol). Diseases with the highest average MAI scores were anemia, Grave's disease, umbilical hernia, urinary tract infection, urticaria, allergic rhinitis, and preeclampsia. The MAI criteria which had the highest percentage of inappropriately prescribed medications were "cost of drugs," "duration of therapy," and "indication."
conclusionPotentially inappropriate prescribing was seen in the study with some of the common coexisting illness being treated with drugs which fared poorly on the MAI. The study has also highlighted areas in drug prescribing where scope for improvement exists. Further, it can act as a benchmark for comparison of future studies to evaluate medication appropriateness in pregnant women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.