ArticleScientific reports2024
Analysis of queries to a Swedish drug information centre identifies scientific knowledge gaps.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical-Pharmacological Drug Information Center of Hannover Medical School: Update From a Tertiary Care University Hospital (2022-2024).Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drug Information Centres (DICs) are providing clinicians with evidence-based support for rational drug treatment. However, knowledge gaps in the literature may hinder DICs from offering optimal guidance. This study examined the extent and nature of these knowledge gaps and their impact on clinical pharmacological advice, using real-world query data from a Swedish regional DIC. Data from 2022 at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital were analysed, focusing on queries outside off-label prescriptions and pharmaceutical aspects. A qualitative text content analysis identified phrases indicating a lack of evidence. Responses were categorized by the presence of these signalling phrases and the presence or absence of knowledge gaps. Among 209 responses, the majority were patient-specific (79%), posed by physicians (95%), and often related to adverse effects (37%). The analysis revealed that 23% of the responses had scientific knowledge gaps, and in 18% of the responses, no clinical pharmacological advice could be provided. Knowledge gaps were particularly associated with queries on adverse effects, long-term medication safety, specific patient cases and comorbidities, drug comparisons, or patient populations with limited literature coverage. This analysis highlights the potential of DICs to identify unmet clinical needs in drug treatment and to promote research for evidence-based, patient-centred drug treatment.
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.