药物不相容网站的比较评价:Stabilis, Trissel手册和日本目前可用的工具

Q4 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
Shinya Suzuki, N. Mochizuki, A. Iwamoto, M. Yoshida, Akio Murakami, K. Ikegawa, M. Yamaguchi, J. Vigneron
{"title":"药物不相容网站的比较评价:Stabilis, Trissel手册和日本目前可用的工具","authors":"Shinya Suzuki, N. Mochizuki, A. Iwamoto, M. Yoshida, Akio Murakami, K. Ikegawa, M. Yamaguchi, J. Vigneron","doi":"10.1097/OP9.0000000000000001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: This study was conducted to evaluate the benefit of Stabilis through a survey of the listings of incompatibility data. Methods: The review was performed in December 2014 to compare the number of incompatible drugs cited by the Stabilis website, “Injectable Drug Audit Manual, 4th edition” (AM) and “Handbook on Injectable Drugs, 17th edition” (ID). We used the data on incompatible drugs to compare each database. We selected 10 frequently used anticancer medicines to compare the drugs cited in Stabilis, AM and ID. In addition, we compared Stabilis and AM in 23 frequently used antibiotics as an additional evaluation. Results: Stabilis had 678 drugs including 456 injectable drugs, AM had 496 injectable drugs and ID had 332 injectable drugs, as of December 2014. Compared with the fact that most references in AM were unofficial data from manufacturers, Stabilis cited 1722 references and ID cited 2830 references. For the 10 selected anticancer drugs, the total number of listed drugs was 118 in Stabilis, compared to 51 in AM and 82 in ID. Overall, mean and median duplication rates were 4.5% and 0% in AM and 60.7% and 59.0% in ID, respectively. For the 23 selected antibiotics, the total number of listed drugs was 463 in Stabilis, compared to 238 in AM. Overall, mean and median duplication rates were 20.1% and 16.0% in Stabilis and 10.3% and 8.0% in AM, respectively. Conclusions: Stabilis offers a beneficial database for checking drug incompatibilities in a manner similar to ID.","PeriodicalId":39134,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Oncology Pharmacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/OP9.0000000000000001","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of a website for drug incompatibility: Stabilis, Trissel's Handbook and the currently available tools in Japan\",\"authors\":\"Shinya Suzuki, N. Mochizuki, A. Iwamoto, M. Yoshida, Akio Murakami, K. Ikegawa, M. Yamaguchi, J. Vigneron\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/OP9.0000000000000001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: This study was conducted to evaluate the benefit of Stabilis through a survey of the listings of incompatibility data. Methods: The review was performed in December 2014 to compare the number of incompatible drugs cited by the Stabilis website, “Injectable Drug Audit Manual, 4th edition” (AM) and “Handbook on Injectable Drugs, 17th edition” (ID). We used the data on incompatible drugs to compare each database. We selected 10 frequently used anticancer medicines to compare the drugs cited in Stabilis, AM and ID. In addition, we compared Stabilis and AM in 23 frequently used antibiotics as an additional evaluation. Results: Stabilis had 678 drugs including 456 injectable drugs, AM had 496 injectable drugs and ID had 332 injectable drugs, as of December 2014. Compared with the fact that most references in AM were unofficial data from manufacturers, Stabilis cited 1722 references and ID cited 2830 references. For the 10 selected anticancer drugs, the total number of listed drugs was 118 in Stabilis, compared to 51 in AM and 82 in ID. Overall, mean and median duplication rates were 4.5% and 0% in AM and 60.7% and 59.0% in ID, respectively. For the 23 selected antibiotics, the total number of listed drugs was 463 in Stabilis, compared to 238 in AM. Overall, mean and median duplication rates were 20.1% and 16.0% in Stabilis and 10.3% and 8.0% in AM, respectively. Conclusions: Stabilis offers a beneficial database for checking drug incompatibilities in a manner similar to ID.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39134,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Oncology Pharmacy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/OP9.0000000000000001\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Oncology Pharmacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/OP9.0000000000000001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Oncology Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/OP9.0000000000000001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景:本研究旨在通过对不相容数据列表的调查来评估Stabilis的益处。方法:于2014年12月对Stabilis网站、《注射用药品审核手册第4版》(AM)和《注射用药品手册第17版》(ID)收录的不兼容药品数量进行回顾性比较。我们使用不相容药物的数据来比较每个数据库。我们选择了10种常用的抗癌药物来比较Stabilis, AM和ID中引用的药物。此外,我们比较了Stabilis和AM在23种常用抗生素中作为附加评价。结果:截至2014年12月,Stabilis共有678种药物,其中可注射药物456种,AM有496种,ID有332种。与AM中的大多数参考文献都是来自制造商的非官方数据相比,Stabilis引用了1722个参考文献,ID引用了2830个参考文献。在入选的10种抗癌药物中,Stabilis列出的药物总数为118种,而AM为51种,ID为82种。总体而言,AM和ID的平均重复率分别为4.5%和0%和60.7%和59.0%。在所选的23种抗生素中,Stabilis列出的药物总数为463种,而AM列出的药物总数为238种。总体而言,Stabilis的平均重复率和中位数重复率分别为20.1%和16.0%,AM的平均重复率和中位数重复率分别为10.3%和8.0%。结论:Stabilis提供了一个与ID类似的药物不配伍检查数据库。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative evaluation of a website for drug incompatibility: Stabilis, Trissel's Handbook and the currently available tools in Japan
Background: This study was conducted to evaluate the benefit of Stabilis through a survey of the listings of incompatibility data. Methods: The review was performed in December 2014 to compare the number of incompatible drugs cited by the Stabilis website, “Injectable Drug Audit Manual, 4th edition” (AM) and “Handbook on Injectable Drugs, 17th edition” (ID). We used the data on incompatible drugs to compare each database. We selected 10 frequently used anticancer medicines to compare the drugs cited in Stabilis, AM and ID. In addition, we compared Stabilis and AM in 23 frequently used antibiotics as an additional evaluation. Results: Stabilis had 678 drugs including 456 injectable drugs, AM had 496 injectable drugs and ID had 332 injectable drugs, as of December 2014. Compared with the fact that most references in AM were unofficial data from manufacturers, Stabilis cited 1722 references and ID cited 2830 references. For the 10 selected anticancer drugs, the total number of listed drugs was 118 in Stabilis, compared to 51 in AM and 82 in ID. Overall, mean and median duplication rates were 4.5% and 0% in AM and 60.7% and 59.0% in ID, respectively. For the 23 selected antibiotics, the total number of listed drugs was 463 in Stabilis, compared to 238 in AM. Overall, mean and median duplication rates were 20.1% and 16.0% in Stabilis and 10.3% and 8.0% in AM, respectively. Conclusions: Stabilis offers a beneficial database for checking drug incompatibilities in a manner similar to ID.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信