ReviewBMJ open2022
Clarity and applicability of adverse drug reaction-related monitoring instructions in clinical practice guidelines for children and adolescents treated with antipsychotic drugs: a review of six clinical practice guidelines.
Review in BMJ open, 2022. 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, 5 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMonitoring instructions related to adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are not always clearly described in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and not always easily applicable in daily clinical practice. The aim of this study was to assess the clarity of presentation and the applicability of ADR-related monitoring instructions in CPGs for children and adolescents treated with antipsychotic drugs.
settingGuidelines from different countries were selected, and monitoring instructions for 13 ADR-related parameters were assessed. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: To assess the clarity and the applicability of the sections concerning monitoring instructions in each CPG, the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation instrument was used. To assess the clarity and the applicability of the monitoring instructions for each ADR-related parameter, the Systematic Information for Monitoring score was used.
resultsSix CPGs were included. Overall, the presentation of the monitoring instructions in the different CPGs was clear; three CPGs scored >75%. All CPGs scored lower on applicability, as, for example, the barriers and facilitators were poorly described. The number of ADR-related parameters included in the CPGs varied between 8 and 13. Why and what to monitor was always described for each parameter. When to start monitoring was also often described (90.2%), but when to stop monitoring was less frequently described (37.4%).
conclusionsThe CPGs differed on the parameters that needed to be monitored. Overall, the monitoring instructions were clearly presented, but improvement in their applicability is required. By improving the monitoring instructions, CPGs can provide better guidance on monitoring ADRs in daily clinical practice.
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.