ArticleThe Annals of pharmacotherapy2016
A Collaborative Assessment Among 11 Pharmaceutical Companies of Misinformation in Commonly Used Online Drug Information Compendia.
Article in The Annals of pharmacotherapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of medication dose adjustments in patients with impaired renal function using different online drug information databases.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2022Observational
- Preferences for Accessing Medical Information in the Digital Age: Health Care Professional Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Review
- Response to Lapkoff and Sittig. Who Watches the Watchers: Working Towards Safety for Clinical Decision Support Knowledge Resources.Applied clinical informatics · 2017Article
- Who Watches the Watchers. Working Towards Safety for EHR Knowledge Resources.Applied clinical informatics · 2017Article
- Online information seeking by patients with bipolar disorder: results from an international multisite survey.International journal of bipolar disorders · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOnline drug information compendia (ODIC) are valuable tools that health care professionals (HCPs) and consumers use to educate themselves on pharmaceutical products. Research suggests that these resources, although informative and easily accessible, may contain misinformation, posing risk for product misuse and patient harm.
objectiveEvaluate drug summaries within ODIC for accuracy and completeness and identify product-specific misinformation.
methodsBetween August 2014 and January 2015, medical information (MI) specialists from 11 pharmaceutical/biotechnology companies systematically evaluated 270 drug summaries within 5 commonly used ODIC for misinformation. Using a standardized approach, errors were identified; classified as inaccurate, incomplete, or omitted; and categorized per sections of the Full Prescribing Information (FPI). On review of each drug summary, content-correction requests were proposed and supported by the respective product's FPI.
resultsAcross the 270 drug summaries reviewed within the 5 compendia, the median of the total number of errors identified was 782, with the greatest number of errors occurring in the categories of Dosage and Administration, Patient Education, and Warnings and Precautions. The majority of errors were classified as incomplete, followed by inaccurate and omitted.
conclusionThis analysis demonstrates that ODIC may contain misinformation. HCPs and consumers should be aware of the potential for misinformation and consider more than 1 drug information resource, including the FPI and Medication Guide as well as pharmaceutical/biotechnology companies' MI departments, to obtain unbiased, accurate, and complete product-specific drug information to help support the safe and effective use of prescription drug products.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.