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 articles  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

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

The recent article "Dose Discrepancies Between the Physicians' Desk Reference and the Medical Literature, and Their Possible Role in the High Incidence of Dose-Related Adverse Drug Events"¹ is timely and provocative. As clinicians involved with the education of medical practitioners, we frequently discuss the limitations of the Physicians' Desk Reference (PDR). Inaccuracies in PDR overdose management guidelines have been described elsewhere.² Although some practitioners are aware of the PDR's limitations, we believe that most clinicians have difficulty appreciating the consequences of these information discrepancies. This is exemplified by the persistent high utilization of the PDR despite the availability of alternative references, as pointed out by the authors.

The PDR dosing information is limited to Food and Drug Administration–approved product labeling. This creates a number of potential limitations. In the absence of periodic literature reviews and dosing reevaluation, discrepancies between PDR recommendations and the best available evidence are . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLES

Dose Discrepancies Between the Physicians' Desk Reference and the Medical Literature, and Their Possible Role in the High Incidence of Dose-Related Adverse Drug Events
Jay S. Cohen
Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(7):957-964.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Physicians' Desk Reference: Problems and Possible Improvements
Jay S. Cohen and Paul A. Insel
Arch Intern Med. 1996;156(13):1375-1380.
ABSTRACT