ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2026
A full educational resource review of grey literature resources for vancomycin dosing tutorials.
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Optimized vancomycin dosing is associated with improved clinical outcomes, especially decreased acute kidney injury. Free, online, grey literature training materials are available for vancomycin dosing; however, their utility is unclear. Objectives: This study evaluates the utility of these tools for just-in-time (e.g. refresher courses) training for general clinicians dosing vancomycin. Methods: A structured grey literature review of websites was performed, and the Online Course Quality Review (OSCQR) rubric was modified for this study. Eligible resources included free, web-based tutorials aimed at general clinicians. The materials were evaluated using the rubric. Data were summarized as counts and proportions. Results: A total of 65 online resources were identified. Seven resources were eligible for inclusion and reviewed. The OSCQR rubric was modified to include 17 relevant items. The average (range) number of elements per resource was 10 per resource (6-14). The resources with the largest proportions of elements were MemoryPharm (14/17, 82%), DoseMe (13/17, 76%) and ClinCalc (11/17, 65%). Evaluating only the High Impact Standards, MemoryPharm, DoseMe, and ClinCalc had (11/11, 100%), (9/11,82%), and (7/11,64%). Conclusions: Memory Pharm, DoseMe, and ClinCalc performed highly using the OSCQR rubric. The additional resources may be useful in other domains, such as site-wide implementation or for more in-depth review. Further research is needed to understand the utility of these resources in clinical education.
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.