This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

I read with interest Dr Cohen's perfervid criticism of the PDR, which he assails as being neither current nor reflecting evolving standards of care, and, moreover, suggests that if it is not remedied, "perhaps the free dissemination of the PDR should be discouraged, and an alternative, objective source of accurate, current information should be created in its place."

Cohen's assault on the PDR is leveled at his perceived singular failure of the PDR to timely publicize the very lowest effective doses of antihypertensive drugs, observing that the Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on the Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC VI), published 3 years earlier, recommended lower initial doses for 23 of 40 drugs (compared with the 1999 and 2000 editions of the PDR), and also finding 2 instances in which the American Hospital Formulary Service recommended even smaller doses for some patients . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLE

Adverse Drug Effects, Compliance, and Initial Doses of Antihypertensive Drugs Recommended by the Joint National Committee vs the Physicians' Desk Reference
Jay S. Cohen
Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(6):880-885.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT