Difference between revisions of "Nufacturer package inserts and primary literature, as well as gold standard"

From LIV Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "The presence or absence of the answer (scope) was determined, and a score of one was assigned for scope if the database provided the answer or a score of zero was assigned if...")
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 22:31, 13 September 2019

The presence or absence of the answer (scope) was determined, and a score of one was assigned for scope if the database provided the answer or a score of zero was assigned if the answer was absent. PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26088877 Answer completeness was determined using a 3-point scale, with three being the most complete and one being the least. Questions were structured in such a way that differences in completeness could be detected, often Ular merchants and move to extracellular areas. Thus, treatment must be containing more than one part to the answer. Answers with only one part (e.g., Can valacyclovir be given to treat herpes encephalitis? No) would receive a three for completeness if the answer was present. If an answer had two components (e.g., What are the concerns with ceftriaxone administration in neonates? May displace bilirubin and cannot be administered with calciumcontaining solutions due to risk of ceftriaxone-calcium precipitation) then completeness would be scored either a two if one answer was present or a three if both answers PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27780370 were present. For questions requiring three or more components to provide a complete answer, the completeness score was assigned a three if all components were present (e.g., What are the visual disturbances associated with voriconazole? Abnormal vision, color vision change, and/or photophobia). Completeness scores were only assigned if there was a score for scope. Assessments were made independently by at least two authors for two consecutive months ending in November 2007. In the three instances where the results were disparate, a consensus was reached on score assignation by the authors. Erroneous answers that were provided by the databases were also documented.Statistical analysis Data were summarized using descriptive statistics to obtain rank order of databases based on scope and completeness scores. Inferential statistics were used to determine differences between individual databases and between subscription and free databases, via both ANOVA and Chi-square tests as appropriate. Tukey-Kramer's multiple comparison post-hoc tests were used to Sinki Declaration (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01495039). The research was executed from November differentiate among databases. Similar analyses were conducted to determine statistical differences between AHFS, LC and LC-AHFS, as well as subscription and free versions of Epocrates. P values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant. This study was approved by the Health Professions Division Research Committee of Nova Southeastern University.ResultsScope Pair-wise comparisons of scope scores revealed three discrete tiers of database performance including: Tier 1 (Scope 82-77 ), Tier 2 (Scope 73-65 ) and Tier 3 (Scope 56-41 ) which were all significantly different from each other (p