ArticleP & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management2012
Drug use evaluation of moxifloxacin (avelox) using a hand-held electronic device at a canadian teaching hospital.
Article in P & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drug Utilization Evaluation and Impact of Pharmacist Interventions on Optimization of Piperacillin/Tazobactam Use: A Retrospective Analysis and Prospective Audit.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Hospital-based ciprofloxacin use evaluation in Eastern Ethiopia: a retrospective assessment of clinical practice.The Pan African medical journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of moxifloxacin (Avelox) has increased at Vancouver General Hospital since its introduction onto the formulary in 2002. It is unclear, however, whether the use of the drug is optimal according to its indication. Hand-held electronic devices, such as personal digital assistants (PDAs), are novel tools that can be used during routine patient care to collect data for drug use evaluation (DUE) reviews.
objectiveWe hypothesized that moxifloxacin was over-utilized and that opportunities existed to optimize its use. This study was designed to characterize moxifloxacin use in concordance with evidence-based assessment criteria. The feasibility of using a PDA device as a data-collection tool was also evaluated.
designAn observational DUE was conducted over a 4-week period (from February 17 to March 16, 2007) at Vancouver General Hospital, a 955-bed tertiary care hospital. Inpatients who received at least one dose of moxifloxacin were enrolled. Evidence-based assessment criteria were developed to evaluate the appropriateness of moxifloxacin use, and a PDA database was developed for data collection. The primary endpoint was the proportion of moxifloxacin use for approved first-line indications.
resultsA total of 132 patients were included. Eighty-nine patients (67%) received moxifloxacin for first-line indications, including community-acquired pneumonia (57%) and acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis (10%). Forty-three patients (33%) had alternative indications, primarily hospital-acquired pneumonia (25%). In 129 evaluable patients, approximately half (51%) of the clinical outcomes were successful; 37% were indeterminate; and 12% were failures. General medicine and respiratory service clinicians prescribed moxifloxacin more appropriately compared with surgical service personnel. Most of the pharmacists supported the use of PDAs as DUE data-collection tools.
conclusionOverall, moxifloxacin utilization at Vancouver General Hospital was appropriate according to evidence-based assessment criteria. Additional opportunities to improve its use exist through health care staff education. PDAs are ideal data-collection tools for DUEs, as they can be conveniently used during routine patient care.
Identifiers
22876087PMC3411225W1845553064What 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.