Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19137281›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2009

Problem-oriented drug information: physicians' expectations and impact on clinical practice.

U Hedegaard, P Damkier

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Naturalistic Evaluation of Pharmacotherapy Consultations Provided to Hospital Clinicians: A Developing Country's Perspective.The Journal of pharmacy technology : jPT : official publication of the Association of Pharmacy Technicians · 2019
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Clinical pharmacology in everyday clinical care.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2013
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

U HedegaardDepartment of Biochemistry, Pharmacology and Genetics, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. uhedegaard@health.sdu.dk
P Damkier

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeProblem-oriented drug information (POD) is a service in which health professionals provide evidence-based answers to clinical questions posed by physicians. The objective of this study was to evaluate the user satisfaction and clinical impact of POD, to investigate predictors for use and to examine the kind of sources physicians search before applying for POD.

methodsTo evaluate POD, a questionnaire was distributed with problem-oriented answers sent from a drug information centre to physicians during the period of April 2006 to March 2007.

resultsOf 197 questionnaires, 183 (93%) were returned. The information from the POD service was highly valued by the physicians, and 90% of the answers led to reported impact on clinical practice in the specific clinical situation. Furthermore, 74% of the answers were intended to be used in a wider context either for future patients (67%) or for dissemination to colleagues (51%). Secondary-care physicians more often than general practitioners (GPs) used the information for dissemination to colleagues (63 vs. 39%, P = 0.0008), while GPs more often used the answer to support patient information (88 vs. 70%, P = 0.0029). The most prominent motive for applying for POD was a request for evidence-based information (78%), and the service was used to overcome barriers to practicing evidence-based medicine such as lack of time (36%), skills for searching (26%), and appraising the literature (13%). Before inquiring, 74% of the physicians had tried other information sources; the most frequent sources used were a drug reference (68%) and consulting a colleague (24%). Secondary-care physicians reported fewer barriers than GPs when seeking information, and secondary-care physicians searched other sources more often than GPs before contacting the service (81 vs. 67%, P = 0.031).

conclusionPOD represents a useful source for acquiring evidence-based drug information by physicians. POD is highly valued by the users. It was reported to have an impact on clinical practice for the specific patient but is also intended to be used in a wider context for future patients or for dissemination to colleagues. GPs' and secondary-care physicians' use of POD differs with GPs having more focus on patient information and secondary-care physicians having more focus on dissemination of the information to colleagues.

Indexed as

PhysiciansProfessional PracticeDrug Information ServicesEvidence-Based MedicineHumansProgram EvaluationRetrospective StudiesSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.