Indicadores de prescripción racional de medicamentos: factibilidad de aplicación en instituciones de las Américas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the feasibility of monitoring the quality of use of medicines in health institutions in countries of the Region of the Americas by means of rational prescription indicators. METHODOLOGY: A quantitative study of the use of medicines was conducted during the period 2016-2018. Rational prescription indicators were developed and selected in accordance with international reference values and the best available evidence for: 1) anti-inflammatory drugs: prescription of ibuprofen and/or naproxen as a percentage of all prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; 2) oral antidiabetics: metformin as a percentage of all prescribed antidiabetics, and metformin and/or sulfonylureas as a percentage of all prescribed antidiabetics; 3) insulins: crystalline insulin and NPH as a percentage of total prescribed insulins; and 4) antihypertensive drugs: angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs-II), and thiazide diuretics as a percentage of all prescribed antihypertensives. The defined daily dose (DDD) per 1 000 inhabitants was used as a measure of consumption per institution. RESULTS: Prescription of metformin as a percentage of all antidiabetics was lower than the value of the reference indicator (27.9%-67.6% vs. 88%), while the prescription of metformin and/or a sulfonylurea was comparable with that value (80.9%-97.5% vs. 88%). The values of NPH, crystalline, and NPH/crystalline insulin in relation to all prescribed insulins were variable with respect to the reference indicator (37.1%-100% vs. 75%). Prescription of ibuprofen and naproxen was below the value of the indicator (20%-50% vs. 80%). The percentage of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and thiazides with respect to all antihypertensives ranged from 65.2%-77.2% to 65%, consistent with the value of the proposed indicator. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility of applying the selected and constructed indicators of rational prescription was demonstrated. These indicators provide useful information for analyzing the quality of prescription in health institutions in countries in the Region and are a useful tool for periodically monitoring it.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".