Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28161750›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2017

Quality assessment of structure and language elements of written responses given by seven Scandinavian drug information centres.

Linda Amundstuen Reppe, Olav Spigset, Jens Peter Kampmann, Per Damkier, Hanne Rolighed Christensen, Ylva Böttiger, Jan Schjøtt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Linda Amundstuen ReppeFaculty of Nursing and Health Sciences, Nord University, Namsos, Norway. linda.a.reppe@nord.no.
Olav SpigsetDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Children's and Women's Health, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Jens Peter KampmannDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Per DamkierDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Hanne Rolighed ChristensenDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ylva BöttigerClinical Pharmacology, Department of Drug Research, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Jan SchjøttSection of Clinical Pharmacology, Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to identify structure and language elements affecting the quality of responses from Scandinavian drug information centres (DICs).

methodsSix different fictitious drug-related queries were sent to each of seven Scandinavian DICs. The centres were blinded for which queries were part of the study. The responses were assessed qualitatively by six clinical pharmacologists (internal experts) and six general practitioners (GPs, external experts). In addition, linguistic aspects of the responses were evaluated by a plain language expert.

resultsThe quality of responses was generally judged as satisfactory to good. Presenting specific advice and conclusions were considered to improve the quality of the responses. However, small nuances in language formulations could affect the individual judgments of the experts, e.g. on whether or not advice was given. Some experts preferred the use of primary sources to the use of secondary and tertiary sources. Both internal and external experts criticised the use of abbreviations, professional terminology and study findings that was left unexplained. The plain language expert emphasised the importance of defining and explaining pharmacological terms to ensure that enquirers understand the response as intended. In addition, more use of active voice and less compressed text structure would be desirable.

conclusionsThis evaluation of responses to DIC queries may give some indications on how to improve written responses on drug-related queries with respect to language and text structure. Giving specific advice and precise conclusions and avoiding too compressed language and non-standard abbreviations may aid to reach this goal.

Indexed as

Drug Information ServicesLanguageHumansScandinavian and Nordic CountriesDrug information servicesHealth careInformation literacyQuality assurance

Identifiers

PMID28161750
PMCPMC5384946

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.