Suppr超能文献

医生对十种新药信息来源的准确性、可获取性及使用频率的看法。

Physicians' opinions of the accuracy, accessibility, and frequency of use of ten sources of new drug information.

作者信息

McCue J D, Hansen C J, Gal P

出版信息

South Med J. 1986 Apr;79(4):441-3. doi: 10.1097/00007611-198604000-00013.

Abstract

We surveyed internists, surgeons, and general practitioners in a six-county area of North Carolina to determine how accurate and accessible they believed ten sources of new drug information to be and how frequently they used each of the sources. Evaluable questionnaires were returned by 119 of the 336 physicians. The majority indicated that all sources were accessible. Commercial sources were thought to be less accurate than noncommercial sources, but were used more frequently (P less than .0002), especially by physicians who had practiced more than 15 years (P less than .02). Written sources were thought to be more accurate (P less than .0001) and were preferred over oral sources of new drug information (P less than .0004). Pharmacists and pharmacology textbooks were believed to be both accurate and accessible, but were relatively infrequently used.

摘要

我们对北卡罗来纳州一个六县地区的内科医生、外科医生和全科医生进行了调查,以确定他们认为十种新药信息来源的准确性和可获取性如何,以及他们使用每种来源的频率。336名医生中有119名返回了可评估的问卷。大多数人表示所有来源都可获取。商业来源被认为不如非商业来源准确,但使用频率更高(P<0.0002),尤其是执业超过15年的医生(P<0.02)。书面来源被认为更准确(P<0.0001),并且比新药信息的口头来源更受青睐(P<0.0004)。药剂师和药理学教科书被认为既准确又可获取,但使用频率相对较低。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验