| Autor: |
Schjøtt J; Section of Clinical Pharmacology, Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry, Haukeland University Hospital, 5021 Bergen, Norway. jan.didrik.schjott@helse-bergen.no.; Institute of Clinical Science, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Bergen, 5021 Bergen, Norway. jan.didrik.schjott@helse-bergen.no., Böttiger Y; Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Drug Research, Linköping University, 58183 Linköping, Sweden. Ylva.Bottiger@regionostergotland.se., Damkier P; Department of Clinical Chemistry & Pharmacology, Odense University Hospital, 5000 Odense, Denmark. pdamkier@health.sdu.dk.; Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense, Denmark. pdamkier@health.sdu.dk., Reppe LA; Pharmacy Division, Faculty of Nursing and Health Sciences, Nord University, 7800 Namsos, Norway. linda.a.reppe@nord.no., Kampmann JP; Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Bispebjerg University Hospital, 2400 Copenhagen, Denmark. jens.peter.konnerup.kampmann@regionh.dk., Christensen HR; Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Bispebjerg University Hospital, 2400 Copenhagen, Denmark. Hanne.Rolighed.Christensen@regionh.dk., Spigset O; Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway. olav.spigset@legemidler.no.; Regional Medicines Information and Pharmacovigilance Centre (RELIS Midt-Norge), Department of Clinical Pharmacology, St. Olav University Hospital, 7006 Trondheim, Norway. olav.spigset@legemidler.no. |
| Abstrakt: |
Background: The aim of this study was to compare use of references in responses from Scandinavian drug information centres (DICs). Methods: Six different fictitious drug-related queries were sent to each of seven Scandinavian DICs. The six queries concerned adverse effects, pharmacokinetics, pregnancy, complementary medicine, polypharmacy, and breast feeding. References in the responses were categorised into five types of drug information sources: primary (original studies), secondary (reviews), tertiary (drug monographs, handbooks, etc.), DIC database, or personal communication. Results: Two hundred and forty-four references were used in the 42 responses. The mean number of references varied from 3.0 to 10.6 for the six queries. The largest difference between centres with regard to number of references used (range 1⁻17) was found for the query on complementary medicine. In total, 124 references (50.8%) were tertiary, and only 10 of the 42 responses (23.8%) did not have any tertiary references included. Complementary medicine, breast feeding, and pregnancy were query types associated with relatively frequent use of primary references. Use of DIC database was not uncommon, but personal communications were seldom used. Conclusions: Scandinavian DICs differ substantially in number and type of references to identical drug-related queries. Tertiary sources are mainly preferred irrespective of type of query. |
