A Quantitative and Narrative Evaluation of Goodman and Gilman’s Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics

Abstract

Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (GGPBT) has been a cornerstone in the education of pharmacists, physicians, and pharmacologists for decades. The objectives of this study were to describe and evaluate the 13th edition of GGPBT on bases including: (1) author characteristics; (2) recency of citations; (3) conflict of interest (CoI) disclosure; (4) expert evaluation of chapters. Contributors’ (N = 115) sex, professional degrees, and presence of undisclosed potential CoI—as reported by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid’s Open Payments (2013–2017)—were examined. The year of publication of citations was extracted relative to Katzung’s Basic and Clinical Pharmacology (KatBCP), and DiPiro’s Pharmacotherapy: A Pathophysiologic Approach (DiPPAPA). Content experts provided thorough chapter reviews. The percent of GGPBT contributors that were female (20.9%) was equivalent to those in KatBCP (17.0%). Citations in GGPBT (11.5 ± 0.2 years) were significantly older than those in KatBCP (10.4 ± 0.2) and DiPPAPA (9.1 ± 0.1, p < 0.0001). Contributors to GGPBT received USD 3 million in undisclosed remuneration (Maximum author = USD 743,718). In contrast, DiPPAPA made CoI information available. Reviewers noted several strengths but also some areas for improvement. GGPBT will continue to be an important component of the biomedical curriculum. Areas of improvement include a more diverse authorship, improved conflict of interest transparency, and a greater inclusion of more recent citations.

A Cross-Sectional Examination of Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures of Physician-Authors Publishing in High-Impact US Medical Journals

“…1,2 Physician researchers who receive industry payments are more likely to demonstrate results favorable to the companies funding them; 3,4 are more likely to prescribe drugs and use of medical devices produced by these companies, from statins 5 to opioids 6 to endoscopic 7 and orthopedic devices; 8 and they may unduly influence other physicians by contributing to research that others use to guide their own clinical practice. [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Industry payments to physicians therefore may bias healthcare providers' delivery of evidence-based medicine and interfere with their responsibilities to their patients.…”

Insights into the Therapeutic of Glucocorticoid for Refractory Mycoplasma Pneumoniae Pneumonia in Children

“…According to study [19][20][21][22][23][24][25] the dosage of glucocorticoids is classi ed as follows: <7.5 mg prednisone equivalent a day is low dose; >= 7.5 mg, but < 30 mg prednisone equivalent a day is medium dose;>= 30 mg, but <100 prednisone equivalent a day is high dose; >=100 mg prednisone equivalent a day is Very high dose; > 250 mg prednisone equivalent a day for one or a few days is pulse therapy. Above 100 mg prednisone equivalent a day there is virtually a 100% receptor saturation with regard to cytosolic receptors.…”

“…Therefore, a further increase in dose may exert rapid effects through non-genomic. In the genomic effect [20,22] 100mg prednisolone is equivalent to 125mg methylprednisolone, so this article uses 125mg methylprednisolone as the grouping standard. Due to the combined effects of genomic and non-genomic effects [22,24] methylprednisolone is a commonly used hormone in clinical practice.…”

Mobile Apps for Drug–Drug Interaction Checks in Chinese App Stores: Systematic Review and Content Analysis

“…An ADE can be related to a medication error, a DDI, or an adverse drug reaction. As the major contributor to ADEs [ 1 , 4 ], DDIs occur when one drug interferes with another [ 5 ], resulting in an altered clinical effect of one or both drugs. DDIs are associated with harmful outcomes, including hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and even death [ 6 , 7 ].…”