ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2020
Adverse drug reactions in drug information databases: does presentation affect interpretation?
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacist resource use across the United States: implications for teaching and practice.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026Article
- Evaluation of adverse drug reaction formatting in drug information mobile phone applications.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2022Article
- Evaluation of adverse drug reaction formatting in drug information databases.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveFormatting of adverse drug reaction (ADR) information differs among drug information (DI) resources and may impact clinical decision-making. The objective of this study was to determine whether ADR formatting impacts adverse event interpretation by pharmacy practitioners and students.
methodsParticipants were randomized to receive ADR information in a comparative quantitative (CQUANT), noncomparative quantitative (NQUANT), or noncomparative qualitative (NQUAL) format to interpret 3 clinical vignettes. Vignettes involved patients presenting with adverse events that varied in the extent to which they were associated with a medication. The primary outcome was interpretation of the likelihood of medication-induced adverse events on a 10-point Likert scale. Lower scoring on likelihood (i.e., ADR deemed unlikely) reflected more appropriate interpretation. Linear regression was performed to analyze the effects of ADR information format on the primary outcome.
resultsA total of 108 participants completed the study (39 students and 69 pharmacists). Overall, the CQUANT group had the lowest average likelihood compared to NQUAL (4.0 versus 5.4;
conclusionsFormatting impacts pharmacists' and pharmacy students' interpretation of ADR information. CQUANT formatting and at least two years of postgraduate training improved interpretation of adverse events.
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.