Premium
Critical evaluation of handheld electronic prescribing guides for physicians
Author(s) -
Min F. D.,
Smyth B.,
Berry N.,
Lee H.,
Knollmann B. C.
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
clinical pharmacology and therapeutics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.941
H-Index - 188
eISSN - 1532-6535
pISSN - 0009-9236
DOI - 10.1016/j.clpt.2003.11.352
Subject(s) - medicine , drug , mobile device , rating scale , electronic prescribing , clinical pharmacology , pharmacology , medical physics , medical prescription , computer science , psychology , world wide web , developmental psychology
Handheld electronic prescribing guides ( i.e ., ePocrates) are widely relied upon by physicians for drug selection and dosage, yet such software products currently lack independent assessment. Methods A world‐wide web search identified software products that provide comprehensive prescribing guidance for physicians, run on handheld computers, are regularly updated, and screen for drug‐drug interactions. To evaluate these products, a novel rating scale was developed with six categories (points): up‐to‐datedness (4), drug indications and dosage (8), side effects (8), drug‐drug interactions (8), nutritional supplements (2), and additional features (8). A battery of drugs and nutritional supplements was then used to score each prescribing guide using the rating scale. Results Eleven software products fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The mean total score was 22 out of 38 (range: 15–28, figure). On average, prescribing guides scored highest in drug dosage and up‐to‐datedness, and lowest in side effects and nutritional supplements. The most common errors were omission of contraindications and side effects. All prescribing guides missed at least one potentially life‐threatening drug‐drug interaction. Conclusion Significant variation exists in the quality of prescribing guides, primarily in the areas of side effects, nutritional supplements and drug‐drug interactions. Given the rate of clinically significant errors, physicians should not rely on one electronic prescribing guide alone. (See Figure) (See Table I) (See Table II) Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (2004) 75 , P92–P92; doi: 10.1016/j.clpt.2003.11.352CP OnHand ePocrates Lexi‐Drugs mobileMDX mobilePDRUpdate Frequency 4 3 3 3 3Indication and Dosage 8 5 7 5 6Side Effects 5 4 8 5 2Drug‐Drug Interactions 7 5 8 4 2Nutritional Suppl. 1 2 0 2 0Special Features 1 4 2 0 2ePharmacopoeia A2z Drugs ™ PDR Drugs ™ SClineRx ™ DrDrugs ™ Pepid PDCUpdate Frequency 2 3 3 3 3 2Indication and Dosage 5 5 5 5 5 6Side Effects 4 6 7 1 4 2Drug‐Drug Interactions 6 6 6 6 6 7Nutritional Suppl. 1 0 0 0 2 2Special Features 5 3 2 2 1 3