Suppr超能文献

电子药物信息资源中的标签外使用信息。

Off-label use information in electronic drug information resources.

出版信息

J Med Libr Assoc. 2022 Oct 1;110(4):471-477. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2022.1419.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare electronic drug information resources for scope, completeness, and consistency of off-label uses information, and to group resources into tiers based on these endpoints.

METHODS

An evaluation study of six electronic drug information resources (Clinical Pharmacology, Lexi-Drugs, American Hospital Formulary Service Drug Information, Facts and Comparisons Off-Label, Micromedex Quick Answers, and Micromedex In-Depth Answers) was conducted. All off-label uses for the top 50 prescribed medications, by volume, were extracted from all resources and used to determine scope (i.e., whether the resource listed the use). Fifty randomly selected uses were then evaluated for completeness (i.e., whether the entry cited clinical practice guidelines, cited clinical studies, provided a dose, described statistical significance, and described clinical significance) and consistency (i.e., whether the resource provided the same dose as the majority).

RESULTS

A sample of 584 uses was generated. The largest number of listed uses was in Micromedex In-Depth Answers (67%), followed by Micromedex Quick Answers (43%), Clinical Pharmacology (34%), and Lexi-Drugs (32%). The highest scoring resources for completeness were Facts and Comparisons Off-Label (median score 4/5), Micromedex In-Depth Answers (median score 3.5/5), and Lexi-Drugs (median score 3/5). Consistency with the majority in terms of dosing was highest for Lexi-Drugs (82%), Clinical Pharmacology (62%), Micromedex In-Depth Answers (58%), and Facts and Comparisons Off-Label (50%).

CONCLUSION

The top-tiered resources for scope were Micromedex In-Depth and Quick Answers. For completeness, the top-tiered resources were Facts and Comparisons Off-Label and Micromedex In-Depth Answers. Lexi-Drugs and Clinical Pharmacology were the most consistent in dosing.

摘要

目的

比较电子药物信息资源在标签外用途信息的范围、完整性和一致性,并根据这些终点将资源分为不同层次。

方法

对六种电子药物信息资源(临床药理学、Lexi-Drugs、美国医院配方服务药物信息、事实与比较标签外、Micromedex 快速答案和 Micromedex 深入答案)进行了评估研究。从所有资源中提取了前 50 种处方量最大的药物的所有标签外用途,并用于确定范围(即资源是否列出了用途)。然后,对 50 个随机选择的用途进行了完整性评估(即条目是否引用了临床实践指南、引用了临床研究、提供了剂量、描述了统计学意义和临床意义)和一致性评估(即资源是否提供了与大多数相同的剂量)。

结果

生成了 584 个用途的样本。列出的用途最多的是 Micromedex 深入答案(67%),其次是 Micromedex 快速答案(43%)、临床药理学(34%)和 Lexi-Drugs(32%)。完整性得分最高的资源是 Facts and Comparisons Off-Label(中位数得分为 4/5)、Micromedex 深入答案(中位数得分为 3.5/5)和 Lexi-Drugs(中位数得分为 3/5)。在剂量方面与大多数资源一致性最高的是 Lexi-Drugs(82%)、临床药理学(62%)、Micromedex 深入答案(58%)和 Facts and Comparisons Off-Label(50%)。

结论

在范围方面,顶级资源是 Micromedex 深入和快速答案。在完整性方面,顶级资源是 Facts and Comparisons Off-Label 和 Micromedex 深入答案。Lexi-Drugs 和临床药理学在剂量方面最一致。

相似文献

4
Evaluation of resources for analyzing drug interactions.分析药物相互作用的资源评估。
J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Oct;104(4):290-295. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.007.

本文引用的文献

3
Evaluation of Point-of-Care Resources for Dietary Supplement Information.用于膳食补充剂信息的即时护理资源评估。
J Evid Based Integr Med. 2018 Jan-Dec;23:2515690X18764844. doi: 10.1177/2515690X18764844.
4
Evaluation of resources for analyzing drug interactions.分析药物相互作用的资源评估。
J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Oct;104(4):290-295. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.007.
5
Prescribing "Off-Label": What Should a Physician Disclose?开具“未标明适应证用药”:医生应披露哪些信息?
AMA J Ethics. 2016 Jun 1;18(6):587-93. doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.6.ecas3-1606.

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