Pleil A M, Pathak D S
Pharmacy Administration Division College of Pharmacy, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Int J Health Serv. 1988;18(4):587-602. doi: 10.2190/53YW-U29G-6CYU-8RX5.
The purpose of this study was to determine what differences exist in the content of commercial drug compendium monographs available in First World and Third World countries. A content model representing First World information was developed from monographs contained in the Physicians' Desk Reference, ABPI Data Sheet Compendium, and the Rote Liste. The content of the three First World compendia was found to be variable, with the Physicians' Desk Reference consistently more comprehensive than either the ABPI or Rote Liste. This result suggests that there is a lack of agreement among industrialized countries regarding what amount of information is necessary or appropriate for inclusion in a commercial drug compendium. A sample of 58 monographs was selected from four Third World compendia and evaluated in terms of comprehensiveness and accuracy. These monographs represented five commonly prescribed drugs from the World Health Organization's Essential Drugs List. The monographs were found to be less comprehensive than any of the three monographs contained in the First World compendia. Approximately 5 percent of the information contained in the sampled monographs was determined to be inaccurate. The sampled monographs for drugs supplied by multi-national pharmaceutical firms were found to contain the same amount of information as those for drugs supplied by domestic firms.
本研究的目的是确定第一世界国家和第三世界国家的商业药品手册专论内容存在哪些差异。从《医师案头参考》《英国制药工业协会数据表汇编》和《德国药品手册》中的专论中开发了一个代表第一世界信息的内容模型。发现这三本第一世界手册的内容各不相同，《医师案头参考》始终比《英国制药工业协会汇编》或《德国药品手册》更全面。这一结果表明，工业化国家对于商业药品手册中应包含多少必要或适当信息缺乏共识。从四本第三世界手册中选取了58篇专论样本，并对其全面性和准确性进行了评估。这些专论代表了世界卫生组织基本药物清单中的五种常用药物。发现这些专论不如第一世界手册中的任何一篇全面。抽样专论中约5%的信息被确定为不准确。发现跨国制药公司提供药品的抽样专论所含信息量与国内公司提供药品的专论相同。
