ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2023
Drug information sources in professional work-a questionnaire study on physicians' usage and preferences (the drug information study).
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between sources of nutrition information and self-perceived nutrition competence of healthcare professionals: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Article
- Clinical-Pharmacological Drug Information Center of Hannover Medical School: Update From a Tertiary Care University Hospital (2022-2024).Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026Article
- Questions in Healthcare Specifically Related to the Discipline of Pharmacy: A Descriptive Analysis of Queries to Drug Information Centres in Sweden.Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology · 2025Article
- Drug information-seeking behaviour among Jordanian physicians: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to explore physicians' use of drug information in professional work, with special focus on those working in primary care, and also in relation to personal characteristics of physicians.
methodsA web-based questionnaire was distributed by e-mail to physicians in five regions in Sweden. The questions concerned drug-related queries at issue when searching for information, sources used, and factors of importance for the choice of source, as well as responder characteristics.
resultsA total of 3254 (85%) out of 3814 responding physicians stated that they searched for drug information every week. For physicians working in primary health care, the corresponding number was 585 (96%). The most common drug-related issues searched for by 76% of physicians every week concerned pharmacotherapeutic aspects (e.g., dosing), followed by adverse drug reactions (63%). For 3349 (88%) physicians, credibility was the most important factor for the choice of sources of drug information, followed by easy access online (n = 3127, 82%). Further analyses among physicians in primary care showed that some personal characteristics, like seniority, sex, and country of education, as well as research experience, were associated with usage and preferences of drug information sources.
conclusionsThis study confirms that physicians often use drug information sources in professional work, in particular those who work in primary health care. Credibility and easy access are key factors for usage. Among physicians in primary care, personal factors influenced the choice of drug information sources.
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.