Off-label use information in electronic drug information resources.

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Journal of the Medical Library Association Pub Date : 2022-10-01 DOI:10.5195/jmla.2022.1419
Amanda Rothgeb, Robert D Beckett, Nadine Daoud
{"title":"Off-label use information in electronic drug information resources.","authors":"Amanda Rothgeb,&nbsp;Robert D Beckett,&nbsp;Nadine Daoud","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2022.1419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":"110 4","pages":"471-477"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10124606/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1419","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
电子药品信息资源中的超说明书使用信息。
目的:比较药品电子信息资源的超说明书用药信息的范围、完整性和一致性,并根据这些端点对资源进行分级。方法:对6种电子药物信息资源(《临床药理学》、《Lexi-Drugs》、《美国医院处方服务药物信息》、《事实与比较》、《Micromedex快速解答》和《Micromedex深度解答》)进行评价研究。按容量计算,前50种处方药的所有标签外用途都是从所有资源中提取出来的,并用于确定范围(即,资源是否列出了用途)。然后评估50个随机选择的应用的完整性(即,该条目是否引用临床实践指南、引用临床研究、提供剂量、描述统计显著性和描述临床显著性)和一致性(即,该资源是否提供与大多数相同的剂量)。结果:生成了584个用户的样本。列出的使用最多的是Micromedex深度答案(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 comparative Off-Label(中位数为4/5)、Micromedex deep Answers(中位数为3.5/5)和Lexi-Drugs(中位数为3/5)。Lexi-Drugs(82%)、Clinical Pharmacology(62%)、Micromedex deep Answers(58%)和Facts and comparative Off-Label(50%)在给药方面与大多数人的一致性最高。结论:scope的顶级资源为Micromedex deep and Quick Answers。为了完整起见,最顶级的资源是事实和比较标签外和Micromedex深度答案。Lexi-Drugs和Clinical Pharmacology在给药上最一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the Medical Library Association
Journal of the Medical Library Association INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
39
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is an international, peer-reviewed journal published quarterly that aims to advance the practice and research knowledgebase of health sciences librarianship. The most current impact factor for the JMLA (from the 2007 edition of Journal Citation Reports) is 1.392.
期刊最新文献
A community engagement program to improve awareness for credible online health information. Consulting with an embedded librarian: student perceptions on the value of required research meetings. Designing a framework for curriculum building in systematic review competencies for librarians: a case report. History in context: teaching the history of dentistry with rare materials. MLA Research Training Institute (RTI) 2018 and 2019: participant research confidence and program effectiveness.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1