ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2023
Tertiary drug information sources for treatment and prevention of COVID-19.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: To evaluate tertiary drug information databases in terms of scope, consistency of content, and completeness of COVID-19 drug information. Methods: Five electronic drug information databases: Clinical Pharmacology, Lexi-Drugs, AHFS DI (American Hospital Formulary Service Drug Information), eFacts and Comparisons, and Micromedex In-Depth Answers, were evaluated in this cross-sectional evaluation study, with data gathered from October 2021 through February 2022. Two study investigators independently extracted data (parallel extraction) from each resource. Descriptive statistics were primarily used to evaluate scope (i.e., whether the resource addresses use of the medication for treatment or prevention of COVID-19) and completeness of content (i.e., whether full information is provided related to the use of the medication for treatment or prevention of COVID-19) based on a 10-point scale. To analyze consistency among resources for scope, the Fleiss multi-rater kappa was used. To analyze consistency among resources for type of recommendation (i.e., in favor, insufficient evidence, against), a two-way mixed effects intraclass coefficient was calculated. Results: A total of 46 drug monographs, including 3 vaccination monographs, were evaluated. Use of the agents for treatment of COVID-19 was most frequently addressed in Lexi-Drugs (73.9%), followed by eFacts and Comparisons (71.7%), and Micromedex (54.3%). The highest overall median completeness score was held by AHFS DI followed by Micromedex, and Clinical Pharmacology. There was moderate consistency in terms of scope (kappa 0.490, 95% CI 0.399-0.581, p<0.001) and recommendations (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.518, 95% CI 0.385-0.651, p<0.001). Conclusion: Scope and completeness results varied by resource, with moderate consistency of content among resources.
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.