The ‘top 100’ drugs and classes in England: an updated ‘starter formulary’ for trainee prescribers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Prescribing is a complex skill required of doctors and, increasingly, other healthcare professionals. Use of a personal formulary can help to develop this skill. In 2006-9, we developed a core list of the 100 most commonly prescribed drugs. Our aim in the present study was to update this 'starter formulary' to ensure its continued relevance for prescriber training. METHODS: We analysed large contemporary primary and secondary care datasets to identify the most frequently prescribed medicinal products. Items were classified into natural groups, broadly following their British National Formulary classification. The resulting drug groups were included in the core list if they comprised ≥0.1% prescriptions in both settings or ≥0.2-0.3% prescriptions in one setting. Drugs from emergency guidelines that did not qualify by prescribing frequency completed the list. RESULTS: Over 1 billion primary care items and approximately 1.8 million secondary care prescriptions were analysed. The updated list comprises 81 drug groups commonly prescribed in both settings; six from primary care; seven from secondary care; and six from emergency guidelines. Eighty-eight per cent of the formulary was unchanged. Notable changes include entry of newer anti-epileptics and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and exit of phenytoin and thiazolidinediones. CONCLUSIONS: The relative stability of the core drug list over 9 years and the current update ensure that learning based on this list remains relevant to practice. Trainee prescribers may be encouraged to use this 'starter formulary' to develop a sound basis of prescribing knowledge and skills that they can subsequently apply more widely.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".