ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026
Problems associated with the ATC system of drug classification.
Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Drug supply shortages and their consequences for the medical profession: a survey in Germany and Austria.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- US Food and Drug Administration black box warnings: Characteristics of drug classes and adverse effects.The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics · 2026Article
- Problems associated with the ATC system of drug classification.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Determinants of prescribing behaviour of antibacterial drugs in Europe and use of appropriate nomenclature in the literature.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system is the international standard for drug utilisation studies. However, structural and conceptual issues remain inadequately addressed. This analysis evaluates the ATC system with respect to consistency, completeness and terminology to identify systemic weaknesses and point out potential alternatives. A systematic analysis of all 14 ATC main groups and their sublevels was conducted based on the "ATC/DDD Index 2025" and the official WHO "2025 guideline". The classification logic, coverage of therapeutic areas, handling of combination products, and terminology were examined. Discrepancies were recorded within groups and across the system as a whole. Widespread inconsistencies became apparent. Classification principles (anatomical, therapeutic, pharmacological, chemical, miscellaneous) are mixed within and across levels, causing structural incoherence. Frequent use of "X/ miscellaneous" categories highlights inadequacies in the classification logic, along with inconsistent handling of combination preparations. Drugs with multiple indications are fragmented across groups, with frequent overlaps and duplications. Terminology is often vague or outdated, obscuring pharmacological mechanisms and reflecting a historical rather than scientific rationale. Overall, the ATC system is characterised by systematic deficiencies rather than isolated irregularities. The ATC classification no longer adequately represents modern pharmacotherapy. Its reliance on single-indication logic, miscellaneous categories and outdated terminology distorts drug utilisation analyses and limits its applicability in clinical and research contexts. A mechanistically oriented system based on pharmacological properties and molecular targets would provide a more consistent, transparent and adaptable framework that is better suited to contemporary drug development, multi-indicational use and rational prescribing.
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.