ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2009
Problem-oriented drug information: physicians' expectations and impact on clinical practice.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Drug interaction databases in medical literature: transparency of ownership, funding, classification algorithms, level of documentation, and staff qualifications. A systematic review.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2015Pooled it
- Clinical pharmacology consultations and their implementation in clinical decision making.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Prescriber-Initiated Engagement of Pharmacists for Information and Intervention in Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Drug information centre queries and responses about drug interactions over 10 years-A descriptive analysis.Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology · 2020Article
- 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 · 2019Article
- Use of References in Responses from Scandinavian Drug Information Centres.Medicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- Quality assessment of structure and language elements of written responses given by seven Scandinavian drug information centres.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017Article
- Factors associated with time consumption when answering drug-related queries to Scandinavian drug information centres: a multi-centre study.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2014Article
- Worldwide analysis of factors associated with medicines compendia publishing.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2013Article
- Clinical pharmacology in everyday clinical care.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2013Article
- Separating the wheat from the chaff: essential information in therapeutics.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2012Article
- Article
- Assessment of Queries Received by the Drug Information Center at King Saud Medical City.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
19137281What 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.