{"title":"Analysis of queries to a Swedish drug information centre identifies scientific knowledge gaps.","authors":"Johan Nilsson, Jenny M Kindblom, Julia Izsak","doi":"10.1038/s41598-024-82324-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Drug Information Centres (DICs) are providing clinicians with evidence-based support for rational drug treatment. However, knowledge gaps in the literature may hinder DICs from offering optimal guidance. This study examined the extent and nature of these knowledge gaps and their impact on clinical pharmacological advice, using real-world query data from a Swedish regional DIC. Data from 2022 at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital were analysed, focusing on queries outside off-label prescriptions and pharmaceutical aspects. A qualitative text content analysis identified phrases indicating a lack of evidence. Responses were categorized by the presence of these signalling phrases and the presence or absence of knowledge gaps. Among 209 responses, the majority were patient-specific (79%), posed by physicians (95%), and often related to adverse effects (37%). The analysis revealed that 23% of the responses had scientific knowledge gaps, and in 18% of the responses, no clinical pharmacological advice could be provided. Knowledge gaps were particularly associated with queries on adverse effects, long-term medication safety, specific patient cases and comorbidities, drug comparisons, or patient populations with limited literature coverage. This analysis highlights the potential of DICs to identify unmet clinical needs in drug treatment and to promote research for evidence-based, patient-centred drug treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"14 1","pages":"30412"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11621409/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82324-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Drug Information Centres (DICs) are providing clinicians with evidence-based support for rational drug treatment. However, knowledge gaps in the literature may hinder DICs from offering optimal guidance. This study examined the extent and nature of these knowledge gaps and their impact on clinical pharmacological advice, using real-world query data from a Swedish regional DIC. Data from 2022 at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital were analysed, focusing on queries outside off-label prescriptions and pharmaceutical aspects. A qualitative text content analysis identified phrases indicating a lack of evidence. Responses were categorized by the presence of these signalling phrases and the presence or absence of knowledge gaps. Among 209 responses, the majority were patient-specific (79%), posed by physicians (95%), and often related to adverse effects (37%). The analysis revealed that 23% of the responses had scientific knowledge gaps, and in 18% of the responses, no clinical pharmacological advice could be provided. Knowledge gaps were particularly associated with queries on adverse effects, long-term medication safety, specific patient cases and comorbidities, drug comparisons, or patient populations with limited literature coverage. This analysis highlights the potential of DICs to identify unmet clinical needs in drug treatment and to promote research for evidence-based, patient-centred drug treatment.
药物信息中心正在为临床医生提供合理药物治疗的循证支持。然而,文献中的知识差距可能会阻碍dic提供最佳指导。本研究使用来自瑞典地区DIC的真实世界查询数据,检查了这些知识差距的程度和性质及其对临床药理学建议的影响。萨尔格伦斯卡大学医院(Sahlgrenska University Hospital) 2022年的数据进行了分析,重点关注标签外处方和药物方面的查询。定性文本内容分析确定了缺乏证据的短语。根据这些信号短语的存在和知识缺口的存在或不存在,对回答进行了分类。在209份回复中,大多数是患者特异性的(79%),由医生提出的(95%),通常与不良反应有关(37%)。分析显示,23%的答复存在科学知识空白,18%的答复无法提供临床药理学建议。知识缺口尤其与不良反应、长期用药安全性、特定患者病例和合并症、药物比较或文献报道有限的患者群体等问题有关。这一分析强调了国家自主创新中心在确定药物治疗中未得到满足的临床需求和促进以证据为基础、以患者为中心的药物治疗研究方面的潜力。
期刊介绍:
We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections.
Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021).
•Engineering
Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live.
•Physical sciences
Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics.
•Earth and environmental sciences
Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems.
•Biological sciences
Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants.
•Health sciences
The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.