• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

医学信息科学流程:定义、研究、评估、综合和共享(DRESS)。

The Medical Information Scientific Process: Define, Research, Evaluate, Synthesize, and Share (DRESS).

机构信息

Pfizer Inc., 500 Arcola Road, Collegeville, PA, 19426, USA.

Pharma Collaboration for Transparent Medical Information™, West Point, PA, USA.

出版信息

Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2022 May;56(3):405-414. doi: 10.1007/s43441-021-00366-w. Epub 2022 Mar 3.

DOI:10.1007/s43441-021-00366-w
PMID:35239132
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8964616/
Abstract

Medical information (MI) professionals are primarily responsible for researching and responding to unsolicited requests for information on their company's product(s). In an effort to set a standard for quality, the Pharma Collaboration for Transparent Medical Information (phactMI) created a code of practice for the provision of medical information to healthcare professionals. This code introduced the term "MI science skills" to describe the expertise required to perform the duties of an MI professional. These skills can be summarized by the acronym DRESS. In order to effectively and efficiently respond to an unsolicited request for information, the MI professional essentially follows five steps: define the question, research the topic, evaluate the evidence, synthesize a response, and share the answer. As this approach mirrors the scientific process for data generation, MI scientist may be a more apt description for this role. This paper explains the rationale behind the term MI scientist and the skills associated with each component of the DRESS approach.

摘要

医学信息(MI)专业人员主要负责研究和回应关于其公司产品的未经请求的信息请求。为了制定质量标准,医药合作透明医学信息(phactMI)为向医疗保健专业人员提供医学信息制定了行为准则。该准则引入了“MI 科学技能”一词来描述执行 MI 专业人员职责所需的专业知识。这些技能可以用缩写 DRESS 来概括。为了有效地、高效地回应未经请求的信息请求,MI 专业人员基本上需要遵循五个步骤:定义问题、研究主题、评估证据、综合回应并分享答案。由于这种方法反映了数据生成的科学过程,因此 MI 科学家可能是对该角色更贴切的描述。本文解释了 MI 科学家一词背后的基本原理以及与 DRESS 方法各个组件相关的技能。

相似文献

1
The Medical Information Scientific Process: Define, Research, Evaluate, Synthesize, and Share (DRESS).医学信息科学流程:定义、研究、评估、综合和共享(DRESS)。
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2022 May;56(3):405-414. doi: 10.1007/s43441-021-00366-w. Epub 2022 Mar 3.
2
phactMI Benchmarking Survey on Content Development and Inquiry Management.phactMI 内容开发和查询管理基准测试调查。
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2020 Nov;54(6):1263-1268. doi: 10.1007/s43441-020-00137-z. Epub 2020 Mar 4.
3
Opinions and Trends of Healthcare Providers Concerning Scientific/Standard Response Documents.医疗保健提供者对科学/标准应对文件的意见和趋势。
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2020 Nov;54(6):1388-1397. doi: 10.1007/s43441-020-00165-9. Epub 2020 May 26.
4
Pharma Collaboration for Transparent Medical Information (phactMI) Benchmark Study: Trends, Drivers, Success Factors, and Value of Globalization in Medical Information.透明医疗信息制药合作组织(phactMI)基准研究:医疗信息全球化的趋势、驱动因素、成功因素及价值
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2019 May;53(3):332-339. doi: 10.1177/2168479018779920. Epub 2018 Jun 19.
5
Responding to Unsolicited Medical Requests from Health Care Professionals on Pharmaceutical Industry-Owned Social Media Sites: Three Pilot Studies.回应医疗保健专业人员在制药行业自有社交媒体网站上主动提出的医疗请求:三项试点研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Oct 29;20(10):e285. doi: 10.2196/jmir.9643.
6
Proposed Best Practice Guidelines for Scientific Response Documents: A Consensus Statement from phactMI.科学应对文件最佳实践指南草案:phactMI 的共识声明。
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2020 Nov;54(6):1303-1311. doi: 10.1007/s43441-020-00151-1. Epub 2020 Apr 20.
7
Culture of Care: Organizational Responsibilities关怀文化:组织职责
8
Pharma Collaboration for Transparent Medical Information (phactMI™) Benchmark Study: Trends, Drivers, and Value of Product Support Activities, Key Performance Indicators, and Other Medical Information Services: Insights from a Survey of 27 US Pharmaceutical Medical Information Departments.制药行业透明医疗信息合作(phactMI™)基准研究:产品支持活动、关键绩效指标和其他医疗信息服务的趋势、驱动因素和价值:来自对 27 家美国制药医疗信息部门调查的见解。
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2020 Nov;54(6):1275-1281. doi: 10.1007/s43441-020-00162-y. Epub 2020 May 23.
9
Evaluating Literature for Oncology Data Gaps to Improve the Quality of Standard Response Letters: A Retrospective Review.评估肿瘤学数据空白文献,以提高标准回复函的质量:一项回顾性研究。
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2020 Mar;54(2):385-389. doi: 10.1007/s43441-019-00066-6. Epub 2020 Jan 6.
10
A qualitative systematic review of internal and external influences on shared decision-making in all health care settings.对所有医疗环境中共同决策的内部和外部影响进行的定性系统评价。
JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2012;10(58):4633-4646. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2012-432.

引用本文的文献

1
Creation of Scientific Response Documents for Addressing Product Medical Information Inquiries: Mixed Method Approach Using Artificial Intelligence.创建用于处理产品医学信息查询的科学回应文件:使用人工智能的混合方法
JMIR AI. 2025 Mar 13;4:e55277. doi: 10.2196/55277.

本文引用的文献

1
Proposed Best Practice Guidelines for Scientific Response Documents: A Consensus Statement from phactMI.科学应对文件最佳实践指南草案:phactMI 的共识声明。
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2020 Nov;54(6):1303-1311. doi: 10.1007/s43441-020-00151-1. Epub 2020 Apr 20.
2
AMWA-EMWA-ISMPP joint position statement on predatory publishing.美国医学写作协会-欧洲医学写作协会-国际医学出版专业人员协会关于掠夺性出版的联合立场声明
Curr Med Res Opin. 2019 Sep;35(9):1657-1658. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2019.1646535. Epub 2019 Jul 29.
3
A Theory on the Relativity of Factors Impacting the Utilization of Medical Information Services From the Pharmaceutical Industry.制药行业影响医学信息服务利用因素的相对性理论
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2016 Sep;50(5):554-559. doi: 10.1177/2168479016640019. Epub 2016 Jul 10.
4
Lies, damned lies and statistics: Clinical importance versus statistical significance in research.谎言,可恶的谎言和统计数据:研究中的临床重要性与统计学意义。
Paediatr Respir Rev. 2018 Jan;25:88-93. doi: 10.1016/j.prrv.2017.02.002. Epub 2017 Feb 28.
5
Statistics Myth Busters: Dispelling Common Misperceptions Held by Readers of the Biomedical Literature.统计误区揭秘:消除生物医学文献读者的常见误解
Ann Pharmacother. 2017 May;51(5):429-438. doi: 10.1177/1060028016686356. Epub 2017 Jan 7.
6
Making Sense of Statistics in Clinical Trial Reports: Part 1 of a 4-Part Series on Statistics for Clinical Trials.临床试验报告中的统计学解读:临床试验统计学系列文章之四篇中的第一篇。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Dec 8;66(22):2536-49. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.014.
7
PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews.PICO、PICOS和SPIDER:三种定性系统评价检索工具特异性和敏感性的比较研究
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Nov 21;14:579. doi: 10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0.
8
Drug information--the systematic approach: continuing education article.药物信息——系统方法:继续教育文章
J Pharm Pract. 2013 Apr;26(2):78-84. doi: 10.1177/0897190012474229.
9
Teaching evidence-based medicine literature searching skills to medical students during the clinical years: a randomized controlled trial.在临床学年向医学生教授循证医学文献检索技能:一项随机对照试验。
J Med Libr Assoc. 2012 Jul;100(3):190-6. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.100.3.009.
10
Assessing pharmacy residents' knowledge of biostatistics and research study design.评估药学住院医师的生物统计学知识和研究设计能力。
Ann Pharmacother. 2012 Jul-Aug;46(7-8):991-9. doi: 10.1345/aph.1Q772. Epub 2012 Jul 24.