ArticlePharmacy world & science : PWS2005
Health professionals: how do they assess new medicines?
Article in Pharmacy world & science : PWS, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- What zinc supplementation does and does not achieve in diarrhea prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2011Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify the types of information used by health professionals when assessing a new medicine, and to discover whether measures of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are understood and used.
methodA cross-sectional survey of 56 health professionals was undertaken in a tertiary hospital in New Zealand. Respondents were consultants, registrars, house-surgeons, pharmacists, and specialist nurses
main outcome measuresHealth professionals' opinions on clinical and cost information required for assessing a new medicine; their ability to calculate measures of risk; and their ability to define clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and types of economic analysis.
resultsThirty-four percent of respondents considered journals and research to be the most accurate sources of information when assessing a new medicine. Efficacy, safety, contraindications and side-effects were the most important information sought. In total, 93% gave an acceptable definition of clinical effectiveness, and 38% of cost-effectiveness. The majority of each profession (except specialist nurses) could calculate relative risk reduction (RRR) and absolute risk reduction (ARR) but fewer could calculate numbers needed to treat (NNT). Eighty-four percent of respondents felt that cost affected their assessment of a new medicine. Less than a quarter of respondents could define each type of economic analysis. Consultants and pharmacists appeared to have the best knowledge of economic analysis.
conclusionEfficacy, safety, contraindications and side-effects were the most important information sought when assessing a new medicine. Health professionals' knowledge of clinical effectiveness was greater than their knowledge of cost-effectiveness. Consultants and pharmacists appeared to have the best knowledge of economic analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16096894What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.