Aim: This study's objective was to analyze dentists' practice of drug information resources in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Methods: This is a 4-month cross-sectional study about the dentists' practice of drug information resources in Saudi Arabia. It is a self-reported and electronic survey of dentists. We included dentists from interns to consultants and from all specialties in dentistry and located in Saudi Arabia. The survey consisted of two parts. The first part collected demographic information. The second part collected data about the type of drug information inquiries, aspects of dental drug information resources, and the dental drug information resources and types of dental drug information resources used in practice are responsible. We used the 5-point Likert response scale system to obtain responses to the survey questions. The data were collected through the Survey Monkey system and analyzed through the Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS), Jeffery's Amazing Statistics Program (JASP), and Microsoft Excel (version 16). Results: The average number of dental information resources was 0.84 per patient daily. The most commonly referred resource in relation to the dental drug information was biweekly (94 (36.43%)), monthly (92 (35.66%)) followed by weekly (35 (13.58%)) newsletter in addition to those published a few times per year (18 (6.98%)). The most frequently searched question was about the adverse reaction (190 (73.36%)) and drug availability (144 (55.60%)), whereas the majority of the dental prescriptions was related to the oral ulcer (83 (32.05%)) and sedation medications (74 (28.57%)). The average score for the item "implemented items for dental drug information resources" was 1.78. The highest score was obtained for the element "an annual plan of dental drug information resources" (1.88). In contrast, the lowest score was obtained for "dental drug information resources dentist's competency" (1.7), with statistically significant differences between all responses (p<0.001). The highest scores of dental drug information resources (to authorities) the responsibility was a clinical pharmacist (4.65) and pharmacy technicians (4.34). In contrast, the lowest score was dentists (2.19), with statistical signification among all answers in each aspect (p<0.001). Conclusion: Despite the demand for resources to resolve drug-related dental care problems, the resources were seldom utilized. Targeting education and training of dental information resources is required to improve dental patient care in Saudi Arabia.

Objectives: In this study, we aimed to assess pharmacists' knowledge about scientific publications in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Methods: In this cross-sectional survey, we analyzed pharmacists' knowledge about scientific publications in Saudi Arabia. We used a self-reported electronic survey questionnaire and distributed it to pharmacists from interns to consultants and specialists. The survey collected demographic information of the responders and their knowledge of selected research paper elements in a scientific journal. We used 5-point Likert response scale system with closeended questions to obtain responses. The data were collected through the Survey Monkey system and analyzed using the Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) and Jeffery's Amazing Statistics Program (JASP), and Microsoft Excel (version 16) software. Results: A total of 543 pharmacists responded to the questionnaire. Of them, more than one-quarter of the participants responded from the central region (155 (28.55%)), followed by the eastern region (133 (24.49%)), with statistically significant differences between all regions (p=0.000). Females responded more (321 (59.12%)) than that of males (222 (40.88%)). The majority of the responders were Saudi nationals (351 (64.64%)), followed by non-Saudi nationals (192 (35.36%)), with statistically significant differences between them (p=0.000). The average score for knowledge of pharmacists about writing a section in the research article was 4.07, with high scores obtained for the elements "knowledge of the abstract section" (4.51) and "knowledge of the Introduction section" (4.47), with statistically significant between all responses (p=0.000). The average score for knowledge of pharmacists about various study designs in the manuscript was 3.36, with high scores obtained for the elementary knowledge of cohort study (3.59), case series (3.59), observational study, and Letters to the editor (3.49), with statistically significant differences between responses (p=0.000). The average score for knowledge of pharmacists about journal indexing database was (3.17), with high scores obtained for the elementary knowledge of the Google Scholar (3.78), PubMed (3.60), and Index Medicus (3.43). The scores for the reliability analysis of McDonald's ω was (0.843), Cronbach's α was (0.847), Gutmann's λ2 was (0.888), Gutmann's was λ6 (0.985), and Greater Lower Bound was (0.994). Conclusion: Pharmacists' knowledge about writing research sections, study design, and journal indexing database for scientific publications in Saudi Arabia was varied. Therefore, we highly recommend improving pharmacists' training and education during graduation to improve patients' pharmaceutical care in Saudi Arabia.

No abstract