ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Therapeutic drug monitoring education: The current state.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medication Adherence Measurement in Southeast Europe: A Comparative Analysis of Assessment Methods, Digital Health Implementation, and Regulatory Frameworks.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Therapeutic drug monitoring education: The current state.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo evaluate available information on therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) education programmes and their implementation across different countries.
methodsThe study was performed in two phases. First, a scoping review of scientific literature on available education programmes was performed. Afterwards, a questionnaire was distributed among a worldwide network of professionals engaged in the practice of TDM.
resultsEight scientific articles discussing TDM educational programmes were found. They described in depth an educational programme on TDM, which was primarily offered as postgraduate education programme for hospital staff. We received a total 23 responses (30% response rate); of these, 68% were from academia. For 70% of respondents, TDM is part of the educational programme of healthcare professionals, and for 56% it is offered at both undergraduate and postgraduate level, aimed mainly at physicians (39%) and pharmacists (65%). TDM is mainly performed in infectious diseases (n = 15), neurology (n = 14) and psychiatry (n = 12), as well as for antibiotics (83%), monoclonal antibodies (53%), and oncology and psychotropics (48%). Funding for TDM is derived mostly from public health insurance (48%), hospital (44%), patients (39%). In some cases, patients might co-pay to hospital or to health insurance fund.
conclusionsEducation on TDM is scattered across different subjects, disciplines and degrees. It is oriented essentially towards physicians and pharmacists, and its funding is mainly public. General guidelines are lacking. In light of this, it is necessary to consider developing a comprehensive educational programme on TDM, oriented towards relevant drugs and diseases, and encompassing appropriate analytical and pharmacological methods.
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.