ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2022
Off-label use information in electronic drug information resources.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Critical Appraisal of Off-Label Use and Repurposing of Statins for Non-Cardiovascular Indications: A Systematic Mini-Update and Regulatory Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Tertiary drug information sources for treatment and prevention of COVID-19.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare electronic drug information resources for scope, completeness, and consistency of off-label uses information, and to group resources into tiers based on these endpoints. Methods: An evaluation study of six electronic drug information resources (Clinical Pharmacology, Lexi-Drugs, American Hospital Formulary Service Drug Information, Facts and Comparisons Off-Label, Micromedex Quick Answers, and Micromedex In-Depth Answers) was conducted. All off-label uses for the top 50 prescribed medications, by volume, were extracted from all resources and used to determine scope (i.e., whether the resource listed the use). Fifty randomly selected uses were then evaluated for completeness (i.e., whether the entry cited clinical practice guidelines, cited clinical studies, provided a dose, described statistical significance, and described clinical significance) and consistency (i.e., whether the resource provided the same dose as the majority). Results: A sample of 584 uses was generated. The largest number of listed uses was in Micromedex In-Depth Answers (67%), followed by Micromedex Quick Answers (43%), Clinical Pharmacology (34%), and Lexi-Drugs (32%). The highest scoring resources for completeness were Facts and Comparisons Off-Label (median score 4/5), Micromedex In-Depth Answers (median score 3.5/5), and Lexi-Drugs (median score 3/5). Consistency with the majority in terms of dosing was highest for Lexi-Drugs (82%), Clinical Pharmacology (62%), Micromedex In-Depth Answers (58%), and Facts and Comparisons Off-Label (50%). Conclusion: The top-tiered resources for scope were Micromedex In-Depth and Quick Answers. For completeness, the top-tiered resources were Facts and Comparisons Off-Label and Micromedex In-Depth Answers. Lexi-Drugs and Clinical Pharmacology were the most consistent in dosing.
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.