An agenda for UK clinical pharmacology: The potential of the internet

British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Volumn 73, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 953-958

  Coleman, Jamie J ^a   Mcdowell, Sarah E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY; DATA BASE; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; INTERNET; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NOTE; PATIENT CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UNITED KINGDOM; VALIDITY; ARTICLE; EDUCATION; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PHYSICIAN; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; STANDARD;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL PHARMACY INFORMATION SYSTEMS; HUMANS; INTERNET; PHARMACOLOGY, CLINICAL; PHYSICIANS;

EID: 84860655898     PISSN: 03065251     EISSN: 13652125     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04245.x     Document Type: Note

References (34)

1. Kleinrock L. The day the infant internet uttered its first words. Available at (last accessed 11 December 2011).
2. Berners-Lee T, Fischetti M. Weaving the Web. London: Orion Business, 1999.
3. World Wide Web Consortium. The original proposal of the World Wide Web. 1989. Available at (last accessed 11 December 2011).
4. World Wide Web Consortium. Architecture of the World Wide Web (Vol. 1) 2004. Available at (last accessed 11 December 2011).
5. Broder A. A taxonomy of web search. SIGIR Forum 2002; 36: 3-10. Available at (last accessed 11 December 2011).
6. Sackett DL, Straus SE. Finding and applying evidence during clinical rounds: the 'evidence cart'. JAMA 1998; 280: 1336-8.
7. Hersch W. Information Retrieval: A Health and Biomedical Perspective, 3rd edn. New York: Springer, 2009.
8. US National Library of Medicine. Available at (last accessed 11 December 2011).
9. Golder S, McIntosh HM, Loke Y. Identifying systematic reviews of the adverse effects of health care interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006; 6: 22.
10. McLellan F. 1966 and all that - when is a literature search done? Lancet 2001; 358: 646.
11. Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147: 224-33.
12. Vitry A, Lexchin J, Sasich L, Dupin-Spriet T, Reed T, Bertele V, Garattini S, Toop L, Hurley E. Provision of information on regulatory authorities' websites. Intern Med J 2008; 38: 559-67.
13. Kaphingst KA, Dejong W, Rudd RE, Daltroy LH. A content analysis of direct-to-consumer television prescription drug advertisements. J Health Commun 2004; 9: 515-28.
14. Barker CIS, Talbot JCC, Aronson JK. Selected national pharmacovigilance websites. An analysis of contents. Drug Saf 2012; 35: 141-8.
15. Eysenbach G, Wyatt J. Facilitating research. In: Medicine and the Internet, 3rd edn, ed. McKenzie BC. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002; 211-25.
16. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA 2002; 29: 2691-700.
17. Butt TF, Cox AR, Lewis H, Ferner RE. Patient experiences of serious adverse drug reactions and their attitudes to medicines: a qualitative study of survivors of Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis in the UK. Drug Saf 2011; 34: 319-28.
18. Schröder S, Zöllner YF, Schaefer M. Drug related problems with antiparkinsonian agents: consumer Internet reports versus published data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007; 16: 1161-6.
19. Bost F, Jacobs RT, Kowalczyk P. Informatics for neglected diseases collaborations. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 2010; 13: 286-96.
20. Avery AJ, Savelyich BS, Sheikh A, Cantrill J, Morris CJ, Fernando B, Bainbridge M, Horsfield P, Teasdale S. Identifying and establishing consensus on the most important safety features of GP computer systems: e-Delphi study. Inform Prim Care 2005; 13: 3-12.
21. Bailey DS, Zanders ED. Drug discovery in the era of Facebook - new tools for scientific networking. Drug Discov Today 2008; 13: 863-8.
22. Payne PR, Greaves AW, Kipps TJ. CRC Clinical Trials Management System (CTMS): an integrated information management solution for collaborative clinical research. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2003; 967.
23. Lindh JD, Kublickas M, Westgren M, Rane A. Internet based clinical trial protocols - as applied to a study of warfarin pharmacogenetics. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004; 58: 482-7.
24. London JW, Smalley KJ, Conner K, Smith JB. The automation of clinical trial serious adverse event reporting workflow. Clin Trials 2009; 6: 446-54.
25. Almenoff JS. Innovations for the future of pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 2007; 30: 631-3.
26. Slomski A. The National Library of Medicine: 175 years of advancing biomedical knowledge. JAMA 2011; 305: 2158-61.
27. World Medical Association. WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Available at (last accessed 11 December 2011).
28. Tang H, Ng JH. Googling for a diagnosis - use of Google as a diagnostic aid: internet based study. BMJ 2006; 333: 1143-5.
29. Greenwald R. And a diagnostic test was performed. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 2089-90.
30. Corley CD, Cook DJ, Mikler AR, Singh KP. Using Web and social media for influenza surveillance. Adv Exp Med Biol 2010; 680: 559-64.
31. Johnson HA, Wagner MM, Hogan WR, Chapman W, Olszewski RT, Dowling J, Barnas G. Analysis of Web access logs for surveillance of influenza. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004; 107: 1202-6.
32. ® Europe - Manhattan Research. Available at (last accessed 11 December 2011).
33. Frost J, Okun S, Vaughan T, Heywood J, Wicks P. Patient-reported outcomes as a source of evidence in off-label prescribing: analysis of data from PatientsLikeMe. J Med Internet Res 2011; 13: e6.
34. Zittrain J. The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press, 2008.