A Pilot Study to Examine the Comparative Usefulness of the Iowa Drug Information Service (Idis) and Medline in Meeting the Demands of a Pharmacy-Based Drug-Information Service

Milne, Angela

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2710.1977.tb00093.x

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thirty‐seven studies were excluded from this review 25–61 . Eighteen studies compared data sources for other drug information, 26,29–33,37,38,42,45,52,53,55,57–61 eight did not present the results for identifying information on adverse effects, 25,27,28,40,41,47,51,54 eight were descriptive studies, 34,35,39,44,46,49,50,56 two studies did not contain enough information 43,48 and one study included consumer information sources only 36 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sources of information on adverse effects: a systematic review

Golder

Loke

2010

Health Info Libraries J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Systematic reviews can provide accurate and timely information on adverse effects. An essential part of the systematic review process is a thorough search of the literature. This often requires searching many different sources. However, it is unclear which sources are most effective at providing information on adverse effects. Objective: To identify and summarise studies that have evaluated sources of information on adverse effects. Methods: Studies were located by searching in 10 databases as well as by reference checking, hand searching, citation searching and contacting experts. Results: A total of 6218 citations were retrieved yielding 19 studies which met the inclusion criteria. The included studies tended to focus on the adverse effects of drug interventions and compare the relative value of different sources using the number of relevant references retrieved from searches of each source. However, few studies were conducted recently with a large sample of references. Conclusions: This review suggests that EMBASE, Derwent Drug File, MEDLINE and industry submissions may potentially provide the greatest number of relevant references for information on adverse effects of drugs. However, a systematic evaluation of the current value of different sources of information for adverse effects is urgently required.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sources of information on adverse effects: a systematic review

Golder

Loke

2010

Health Info Libraries J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interviewers record the medications used, which are coded using the Iowa Drug Information Service system. 16 Women were not prompted specifically about sleep medications. Dosages and drug frequency were not reliably recorded and were not used for these analyses.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prescription medications for sleep disturbances among midlife women during 2 years of follow-up: a SWAN retrospective cohort study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo examine the effects of prescription sleep medications on patient-reported sleep disturbances.DesignRetrospective cohort.SettingLongitudinal cohort of community-dwelling women in the USA.ParticipantsRacially and ethnically diverse middle-aged women who reported a sleep disturbance.InterventionsNew users of prescription sleep medications propensity score matched to women not starting sleep medications.Main outcomes and measuresSelf-reported sleep disturbance during the previous 2 weeks—difficulty initiating sleep, waking frequently and early morning awakening—using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from no difficulty on any night (rating 1) to difficulty on 5 or more nights a week (rating 5). Sleep disturbances were compared at 1 year (primary outcome) and 2 years of follow-up.Results238 women who started sleep medications were matched with 447 non-users. Participants had a mean age of 49.5 years and approximately half were white. At baseline, sleep disturbance ratings were similar: medication users had a mean score for difficulty initiating sleep of 2.7 (95% CI 2.5 to 2.9), waking frequently 3.8 (95% CI 3.6 to 3.9) and early morning awakening 2.8 (95% CI 2.6 to 3.0); non-users ratings were 2.6 (95% CI 2.5 to 2.7), 3.7 (95% CI 3.6 to 3.9) and 2.7 (95% CI 2.6 to 2.8), respectively. After 1 year, ratings for medication users were 2.6 (95% CI 2.4 to 2.8) for initiating sleep, 3.6 (95% CI 3.4 to 3.8) for waking frequently and 2.8 (95% CI 2.6 to 3.0) for early morning awakening; for non-users, the mean ratings were 2.3 (95% CI 2.2 to 2.5), 3.5 (95% CI 3.3 to 3.6) and 2.5 (95% CI 2.3 to 2.6), respectively. None of the 1 year changes were statistically significant nor were they different between medication users and non-users. Two-year follow-up results were consistent, without statistically significant reductions in sleep disturbance in medication users compared with non-users.ConclusionsThese analyses suggest that women who initiated sleep medications rated their sleep disturbances similar after 1 and 2 years. The effectiveness of long-term sleep medication use should be re-examined.

show abstract

“…This kind of consideration has led to the creation of a number of databases specifically for pharmaceutical material, most notably Derwent's RINGDOC (latterly Derwent Drug File) database, with specific coverage and detailed intellectual indexing from several pharmaceutical perspectives (Bawden & Devon, 1980; Burcham, 1992; Hoover, 1981; van Putte, 1990). Other pharmaceutical‐specific bibliographic databases include the Iowa Drug Information Service (Cornell, Gatewood, Davis, Fish, & Helmink, 1981; Hall & Foy, 1983; Milne, 1978; Rumschlag & Howes, 1993) and Pharm‐line, produced by the U.K. National Health Service's medicines information service (Judd, 2001; Rodgers, 1985).…”

Section: Pharmaceutical Information Sources Services and Retrievalmentioning

confidence: 99%