Salty broth for salicylate poisoning? Adequacy of overdose management advice in the 2001 Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties (CPS) is a collection of monographs written by pharmaceutical companies and published by the Canadian Pharmacists Association. The CPS is widely available and is consulted frequently by Canadian physicians. We examined overdose management advice contained in the CPS to see whether it reflects current standards. METHODS: We restricted our review to 10 classes of medication for which an overdose is frequently fatal: acetaminophen, beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, digoxin, lithium, opioids, salicylates, tricyclic antidepressants, theophylline and valproic acid. A panel of 3 toxicologists arrived at a consensus on indicated, contraindicated and futile interventions for each of these classes of drug. Monographs were then rated for their inclusion of essential interventions as excellent (listed all interventions and unique supportive care issues and gave correct and complete indications), good (listed the key interventions and gave correct and complete indications), fair (listed the key indications but failed to give proper indications) or poor (failed to list the key interventions). Monographs were also rated on how well they warned against contraindicated interventions as excellent (did not advocate any futile or contraindicated treatments and warned against contraindicated treatments), good (did not advocate any futile or contraindicated treatments), fair (did not advocate any contraindicated treatments but did list some simple futile treatments) or poor (advocated contraindicated or complicated futile treatments, such as unnecessary hemodialysis). We also considered whether the monograph would allow a clinician to manage an overdose, whether it served to refresh one's memory and whether it was simply misleading or dangerous. RESULTS: We reviewed 119 monographs, of which 25 (21%) were adequate to allow a clinician to manage an overdose. Another 25 monographs were not adequate to allow a clinician to manage an overdose but would serve to refresh the memory regarding key management points. Sixty monographs (50%) contained misleading or dangerous advice. Nine monographs (8%) did not fall into any of these categories. In terms of listing essential interventions, 61 monographs (51%) were poor, 35 (29%) were fair, 22 (18%) were good, and 1 (1%) was excellent. For warning against contraindicated interventions, 57 monographs (48%) were poor, 9 (8%) were fair, 51 (43%) were good, and 2 (2%) were excellent. INTERPRETATION: Overdose management advice in the CPS is inadequate in most cases and is misleading or dangerous in half of the monographs examined. These sections should be omitted or rewritten to reflect current standards of care. Physicians should refer to authoritative sources (e.g., current toxicology texts, computerized databases or local poison control centres) for poisoning management advice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".