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

Joseph A. Oddis, ScD
Bethesda, Md

Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(5):576-579.

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

The criticism of Cohen and Insel¹ about the Physicians' Desk Reference (PDR) is misplaced in that the text of the publication is merely labeling approved by the Food and Drug Administration (ie, the manufacturers' package inserts).^2-4 As labeling, the PDR is subject to the limitations placed on manufacturers for promotion of their drugs, and the deficiencies of labeling, the real target for criticism, are naturally also defects of the PDR.

The inadequacies of the PDR have long been recognized by physicians, pharmacists, other health care providers, legislators, regulators, and other users of drug information.^5-11 In fact, it was precisely the major deficiency in PDR content that prompted associations such as the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP)^12,13 and the American Medical Association^7,14 to develop and publish alternative sources of drug information that were objective and regularly updated to reflect ongoing research and clinical experience.

First . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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