Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24415919›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2014

An evaluation of pharmacogenomic information provided by five common drug information resources.

K T L Vaughan, Kelly L Scolaro, Heidi N Anksorus, Mary W Roederer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Tertiary drug information sources for treatment and prevention of COVID-19.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2023
    Article
  2. Review
  3. A Blockchain-Based Notarization Service for Biomedical Knowledge Retrieval.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2018
    Article
  4. Disease-drug database for pharmacogenomic-based prescribing.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2016
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors.

K T L Vaughan(corresponding author), vaughakt@jmu.edu , Director, Rose Library Services, University Libraries, James Madison University, 1251 Carrier Drive, MSC 4601, Harrisonburg, VA 22807; kelly_scolaro@unc.edu , Clinical Assistant Professor, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, 204 A Beard Hall, CB #7574, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; heidi_anksorus@unc.edu , Clinical Assistant Professor, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, 204 C Beard Hall, CB #7574, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; williamsmaryk@hotmail .com , Adjunct Assistant Professor, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, 30085 Britt, Chapel Hill, NC 27517.
Kelly L Scolaro(corresponding author), vaughakt@jmu.edu , Director, Rose Library Services, University Libraries, James Madison University, 1251 Carrier Drive, MSC 4601, Harrisonburg, VA 22807; kelly_scolaro@unc.edu , Clinical Assistant Professor, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, 204 A Beard Hall, CB #7574, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; heidi_anksorus@unc.edu , Clinical Assistant Professor, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, 204 C Beard Hall, CB #7574, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; williamsmaryk@hotmail .com , Adjunct Assistant Professor, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, 30085 Britt, Chapel Hill, NC 27517.
Heidi N Anksorus(corresponding author), vaughakt@jmu.edu , Director, Rose Library Services, University Libraries, James Madison University, 1251 Carrier Drive, MSC 4601, Harrisonburg, VA 22807; kelly_scolaro@unc.edu , Clinical Assistant Professor, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, 204 A Beard Hall, CB #7574, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; heidi_anksorus@unc.edu , Clinical Assistant Professor, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, 204 C Beard Hall, CB #7574, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; williamsmaryk@hotmail .com , Adjunct Assistant Professor, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, 30085 Britt, Chapel Hill, NC 27517.
Mary W Roederer(corresponding author), vaughakt@jmu.edu , Director, Rose Library Services, University Libraries, James Madison University, 1251 Carrier Drive, MSC 4601, Harrisonburg, VA 22807; kelly_scolaro@unc.edu , Clinical Assistant Professor, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, 204 A Beard Hall, CB #7574, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; heidi_anksorus@unc.edu , Clinical Assistant Professor, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, 204 C Beard Hall, CB #7574, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; williamsmaryk@hotmail .com , Adjunct Assistant Professor, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, 30085 Britt, Chapel Hill, NC 27517.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis study evaluated whether pharmacogenomic information contained in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved package inserts of sixty-five drugs was present in five drug information resources.

methodsThe study searched for biomarkers from the FDA package inserts in 5 drug information sources: American Hospital Formulary Service Drug Information (AHFS), Facts & Comparisons 4.0 (Facts), ePocrates Online Free (ePocrates Free), Lexicomp Online (Lexicomp), and Micromedex 2.0. Each resource had the opportunity to present biomarker information for 65 drugs, a total of 325 opportunities. A binary system was used to indicate presence or absence of the biomarker information. A sub-analysis was performed on the 13 most frequently prescribed drugs in the United States.

resultsPackage insert biomarker information was available, on average, for 81.5% of the 65 FDA-listed drugs in 2011. Percent availability for the individual resources was: Lexicomp, 95.3%; Micromedex 2.0, 92.3%; Facts, 76.9%; AHFS, 75.3%; and ePocrates Free, 67.7%. The sub-analysis of the 13 top drugs showed Lexicomp and Micromedex 2.0 had the most mentions, 92.3%; ePocrates Free had the least, 53.8%.

conclusionThe strongest resource for pharmacogenomic information was Lexicomp. The gap between Lexicomp and ePocrates Free is concerning. Clinicians would miss pharmacogenomic information 6.6 times more often in ePocrates Free than in Lexicomp. IMPLICATIONS: Health sciences librarians should be aware of the variation in biomarker availability when recommending drug resources for licensing and use. Librarians can also use this study to encourage publishers to include pharmacogenomics information from the package insert as a minimum standard.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, PharmacologicalDrug Information ServicesDrug LabelingHumansPharmacogeneticsBiomarkers, Pharmacological

Identifiers

PMID24415919
PMCPMC3878935

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.