Cited by 19Pharmacy and Medical PracticesPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsPharmaceutical studies and practices

Misleading score-lines on tablets: facilitated intake or fractional dosing?

Open access
Arnet, I·2010·Swiss Medical Weekly

Abstract

Unlabelled QUESTION UNDER STUDY / PRINCIPLES: Scored tablets are often split to facilitate swallowing or to fractionate the dose. In the latter case, the fragments of the tablet should comply with the content or mass uniformity requirements of the European Pharmacopoeia. For health professionals the splitting information is expected to be in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPCs), the package leaflets (PLs) or Hospital Drug Formularies. We investigated the accuracy of splitting statements in these three sources of drug information. Methods We selected the tablets mentioned as "scored" in the Swiss Compendium Online and in the Drug Formulary of Basel University Hospital, and screened the corresponding SPCs and PLs for information on divisibility and fractional dosing. Missing information was obtained from the drug marketing licence holder. Results The Swiss Compendium Online contained 698 different scored tablets whose SPCs mentioned fractional dosing for 43.8% and explicitly forbade it for 2.7%. The Hospital Drug Formulary indexed 188 items as scored tablets. The corresponding SPCs mentioned fractional dosing for 107 (59.4%) and a sentence forbidding it for 5 (2.8%). The manufacturers' answers permitted fractional dosing for 49 (27.2%) of the remaining tablets and forbade it for 19 (10.5%). Lack of dosage uniformity or presence of "historic decorative" score-lines were the reasons given. Conclusions For the majority of scored tablets the official sources of drug inform…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4414/smw.2010.12953

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Arnet and Hersberger reported that the majority of scored tablets contained no explicit information on tablet splitting in official sources.

    “Arnet and Hersberger reported the majority of scored tablets contained no explicit information on tablet splitting in official sources.5”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Arnet, I.
Affiliations
University of Basel (CH)
Corresponding author
Arnet, I
Venue
Swiss Medical Weekly
Published
2010-02-27
Volume
140
Issue
0708
Pages
105-110
ISSN
  • 0036-7672 (ISSN-L)
  • 1424-3997
OpenAlex
W45943111
Cited by
19
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Swiss Medical Weekly (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • edoc (University of Basel) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • edoc (University of Basel)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
Keywords
scored tablets, tablet splitting, fractional dosing, medication errors, Summary of Product Characteristics, package leaflets, hospital drug formulary, European Pharmacopoeia
MeSH terms
Pharmaceutical Preparations, Humans, Medication Errors, Review Literature as Topic, Switzerland, Tablets, Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions

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