Evaluation of Physician Knowledge of the Key Safety Information for Aflibercept in Canada: Evaluation of Risk-Minimization Measures
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: As part of the risk-management plan (RMP) for aflibercept, materials have been developed to educate physicians in Canada on the key safety information and safe use for aflibercept. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to assess whether physicians in Canada received and reviewed the aflibercept educational materials (i.e. vial preparation instruction card, intravitreal injection procedure video, and product monograph) and to evaluate their knowledge of key safety information. METHODS: Retinal specialists and ophthalmologists who prescribe and/or administer aflibercept were recruited to complete a survey. Physicians could complete and return a paper questionnaire by mail or complete the questionnaire online via a study website. RESULTS: Of the 308 physicians invited to participate in the survey, 95 (31%) completed the questionnaire. Nearly all physicians (98%) reported receiving at least one of the educational materials. The proportion of correct responses to individual questions on storage and preparation of aflibercept ranged from 54 to 98%. Physician knowledge was high on the recommended dose of aflibercept (91%), dose preparation (91-96% on individual items), and dosing guidelines (75-95% on individual items). Most physicians knew the contraindications for aflibercept (89%) and that aflibercept should not be used in pregnancy unless clearly indicated by medical need in which benefits outweigh risks (60%); 21% responded more conservatively that aflibercept should never be used in pregnancy. Knowledge was high for most questions about injection procedures (91-99% on individual items); however, fewer physicians (24%) correctly reported that the eye should be covered with a sterile drape. Knowledge was high for possible side effects (89-100% on individual items) and actions to take in relation to the potential for increased intraocular pressure (86-93% on individual items). CONCLUSION: Nearly all physicians (98%) reported having received the product monograph, and most (82%) reported having received the vial preparation instruction card; nearly half (46%) reported having received the intravitreal injection procedure video. Physicians' knowledge of the most important topics was high. Knowledge varied for topics that are less frequently encountered (e.g. use in women of childbearing potential) and for recommendations that are not standard medical practice in Canada (e.g. use of sterile drape).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».