Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29692977›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of pharmaceutical investigation

Drug information center as referral service in a South Indian tertiary care hospital.

Sapan Kumar Behera, Alphienes Stanley Xavier, Vikneswaran Gunaseelan, Byrappa Kempalalakshmamma Ravindra, Sandhiya Selvarajan, Adithan Chandrasekaran, Steven Aibor Dkhar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of pharmaceutical investigation. 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. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 · 2019
    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.

Sapan Kumar BeheraDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.
Alphienes Stanley XavierDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.
Vikneswaran GunaseelanDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.
Byrappa Kempalalakshmamma RavindraDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.
Sandhiya SelvarajanDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.
Adithan ChandrasekaranCentral Inter-Disciplinary Research Facility, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute Campus, Puducherry, India.
Steven Aibor DkharDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study is to assess the various aspects of drug information services (DISs) provided in the DI center of a tertiary care hospital. MATERIALS AND

methodsDI queries received from various departments from April 2013 to May 2017 were included in the study. Various aspects such as year- and department-wise distribution, reason for sending the queries, mode of receipt and reply, time taken for reply, number of visit for bedside examination of patients, and number of references given per query were analyzed. All the results are expressed in numbers and percentages.

resultsFifty-five DI queries were received during the study period. Most of the queries were received from Department of Orthopedics (26, 47.27%), followed by Neurology (4, 7.27%). Most common mode of receipt of queries (41, 74.55%) was by Cross-reference form not case record form followed by phone calls (8, 14.55%) and outpatient department (OPD) case sheet (6, 10.9%). CRF with attached opinion was the most common mode of reply (41, 74.55%) followed by phone calls (7, 12.73%), and OPD case sheets (6, 10.9%). The most common reason for sending queries was antimicrobials-related problem (25, 45.46%), followed by the use of anticoagulants (13, 23.63%). Most of the queries were replied within 24 h (31, 56.36%), followed by 48 h (14, 25.45%). Out of 41 CRF received for in-patients, bedside examination was requested in 23 (56.09%) CRF. There was an increasing trend in the number of queries received every year with more queries received during 2016 (23, 41.82%).

conclusionsDIS if utilized properly can be used as a referral service such as other specialties in a tertiary care hospital.

Indexed as

Adverse drug reactioncross-reference formdrug information querydrug information servicemode of receipt

Identifiers

PMID29692977
PMCPMC5903022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.