The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Promoting rational prescribing: an international perspective.
Open accessAbstract
Irrational prescribing is a global problem. Rational prescribing cannot be defined without a method of measurement and a reference standard. The former is now available but the latter needs further development. Proven effective interventions to promote rational prescribing in developed countries are treatment protocols based on wide consultation and consensus, properly introduced and with a possibility of feedback; face‐to‐face education focussed on a particular prescribing problem in selected individuals; structured order forms; and focussed educational campaigns. Essential drugs lists are probably effective when based on consensus and used within a comprehensive educational programme. Printed materials alone are not effective. In most cases the usefulness of such strategies in developing countries has not been proven and should be studied. Medical education in clinical pharmacology and pharmacotherapy should be based on the practical needs of future prescribes, should include the principles of rational therapeutics and problem solving, and should immunize the students against the influences they are likely to encounter in their professional life, such as patient pressure, drug promotion and irrational prescribing by peers. Within the scope of a national formulary, specialist departments in teaching hospitals should define prescribing policies as the basis for prescribing, teaching, examinations and medical audit.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Field tests for rational drug use in twelve developing countries
Hogerzeil, H. V., Bimo, Ross-Degnan, D., Laing, R. O., Ofori-Adjei, D., Santoso, B., Azad Chowdhury, A. K., Das, A. M., Kafle, K. K., Mabadeje, A. F. B., et al. (1993) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(93)92760-q · Cited by 328
Self-citation
Cited by
Adverse drug reactions in elderly patients
Routledge, P. A., O'Mahony, M. S., & Woodhouse, K. W. (2004) · British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2125.2003.01875.x · Cited by 476
Irrational Use of Medicines—A Summary of Key Concepts
Ofori-Asenso, R., & Agyeman, A. (2016) · Pharmacy · doi:10.3390/pharmacy4040035 · Cited by 287
Theodorou, M., Tsiantou, V., Pavlakis, A., Maniadakis, N., Fragoulakis, V., Pavi, E., & Kyriopoulos, J. (2009) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-9-150 · Cited by 124
Rational prescribing: the principles of drug selection
Maxwell, S. (2009) · Clinical Medicine · doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.9-5-481 · Cited by 59
Rational prescribing: the principles of drug selection and assessment of efficacy
Waller, D. G. (2005) · Clinical Medicine · doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.5-1-26 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Hogerzeil, H.
- Venue
- British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-01
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-6
- ISSN
- 0306-5251 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2125
- OpenAlex
- W2026753073
- Cited by
- 333
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Promoting rational prescribing: an international perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2125.1995.tb04402.x
- The paper
- Hogerzeil, H. (1995). Promoting rational prescribing: an international perspective. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.1995.tb04402.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.