Customer Reviews

2005 Physicians' Desk Reference

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Why arent't we informed of this before purchasing this item?

License Agreement: (I read this when I was installing it)
2 TERM The license shall remain in effect for between fifteen and twenty four months from the release date of the Product... AN AUTOMATIC SHUTDOWN DEVICE SHALL RENDER THE PRODUCT INOPERABLE AFTER THE TERM EXPIRES.

Will this comment be posted? I am going to check back here in a week to check?

Without question the PDR is a mandatory reference guide for physicians. It does contain all the required prescription drug monographs mandated by the FDA and has a reasonably useful indexing system for searching by Name, Generic, or Disorder/Treatment. The pill identification section is far from comprehensive and considering the decades this has been in publication I would expect slightly more. The lack of a Macintosh installer with the different versions of the cd (you can get this from being in different medical associations, as a medical student, or personally) is ridiculous. Stedmans is included completely in the 'individual' install, it's just not accessable from the PDR interface. The expiration date is ludicrous. Why? Because you own the physical volume (I own 2 shelves of a bookcase of the physical volumes). I have often had to reference back 8 or 9 years to see what formats a current medication was available in as people seem to take it for granted that if they are still taking the same medication, it is available in the same dosage and format. Some serious mistakes can and have been made because this information isn't available in a comprehensive archival system. There is no legitimate argument for an electronic licensing agreement which prevents you from accessing the same documents (less in fact) that you have in hardcopy format. The DRM is probably the only reason this isn't completely mac/other/pda's compatible and it is completely negligent of the publisher to not produce a full non-expiring library. I hope that at some point in time the PDR electronic version is treated correctly and made available as HTML with a Java/javascript search system. This could easily have been done, but wasn't in the name of money and it's harmful to the healthcare system.

I bought the 2002 version of the PDR for $99+ at end of 2001. It was more expensive than the book version but, seemed more convenient. It was advertised by the publisher as containing the entire text of the paper version + more (PDR for non-prescription drugs etc.) I used it occasionally as I'm not a physician. It seemed fine. Early in 2003 I noticed it had NO listing for an important drug. I was able to find this drug in my old 1999 paper book version. I called & the customer service person told me that the CD-ROM version does NOT have as many drugs listed as the paper version. She said if I like I can exchange the CD-ROM for the 2002 book (right, the book cost about $25 less at the time). I declined but, thought I would stick with the paper book next time I updated. Well Just last week I went to look something up & it would not open. I called & was told that the program EXPIRED after 1 year! I paid for it & now cannot use it. I'm annoyed.
Amazon now offers the 2004 book with a coupon for a free CD-ROM. I plan to buy this soon & will only use PDR CDROMS if they are free. I'll stick with the book which they cannot repo!

I am a clinical psychologist and need some drug info.
The PDR is a perfect example of the difference between data and information and its publisher's high handedness is to be expected when it teams with M$.
I just bought and love the Mosby 2004 Drug Guide. Better paper, easier to read, more usable info, and only $30. It is not completely 2004 (none are really current) and the index to brand names has a few omissions but these are minor problems.

The PDR is indispensable -- I'd be lost without it -- but it's highly flawed, and I can't believe that after all these years, they can't figure it out and do a better job. I don't think it would be that hard.

Some aspects of the format are problematic. It's hard to find certain things, and often you won't see what you're looking for even if you land on the right paragraph. Some examples:

(1) For some reason, side effects are divided between two or more different sections of each article. I'm sure there's some logic to this, but it certainly isn't evident, and it makes it much harder to find out what we want to know.

(2) Some important sections -- for example, "Drug Interactions" -- are hard to find, no matter how experienced you are with the PDR. One solution would be to have boldface headings for such sections.

(3) How often have you wanted to find "half-lives" of a medication and perhaps its metabolites, and how often have you actually found them? They are there, but they're buried. Something as important as this should certainly be highlighted, perhaps in tabular form.

The sad fact is that unless you're quite persistent, you often won't find a lot of what you're looking for when you open the PDR, even though it's there.

Some other flaws are probably unavoidable. For example, despite the fact that seemingly anything and everything is mentioned as a possible side effect for every medication, common side effects sometimes are not mentioned at all. Also, oftentimes some of the major uses for a given medication are not mentioned. These problems aren't the fault of the publisher. The first reflects failures of the medical literature in general -- if a side effect isn't mentioned prominently in the literature, it might not find its way into the PDR. The second reflects the fact that many correct usages of medications are not officially approved.

Some caveats for consumers: The listed dosage ranges for any given medication are sometimes too limited. Lower or higher dosages may be right for some people. And also, do beware of those endless lists of possible side effects. Remember that these aren't necessarily things that will happen; they only MIGHT happen. (Many of them rarely if ever happen, at least in terms of their being caused by the medications.) And sometimes the lists fail to include things that DO happen! If you are convinced that a medication has done something to you and it's not mentioned in the PDR, you still could very well be right. But, don't assume that something IS happening just because it IS mentioned on that endless list!

It's hard to express a simple overall assessment of the PDR. The book is an important reference, but it's hard to understand that the publisher hasn't figured out how to do a better job. Maybe they'll read this page and finally do it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The PDR is basically a bloated collection of current-patent drug inserts printed on cheap newsprint. It weighs a ton, and contains virtually no information that one can't download from the relevant drug company's website for free.

If you are a doctor, you probably get this book for free. That's about what it's worth, considering that its scope is limited to expensive non-generic drugs.

If you have fifty bucks to spend on a drug reference, get something complete and useable like the "Physician's Drug Handbook." If you want full prescribing info for a current drug, you can get it off the internet without worrying about out-of-date info or expired CD's.

The PDR has always been a uniquely important source. However, in various respects the format has been problematic, as some of us have noted. I assume we were not alone -- we were probably just a few voices among many. And happily, it looks like perhaps the publisher and its fellow parties have listened.

In past reviews I noted the difficulty in finding certain sections -- for example, "Drug Interactions." I mentioned that boldface headings would be helpful. And I see that for at least the last couple of years, this has indeed been done. Bravo!! -- a very welcome improvement. (I have been slow to notice this change. My apologies!)

But other problems remain. For example, side effects in most cases are divided between two or more different sections of each article. And various important things are still hard to find. How often have you wanted to find "half-lives" of a medication and perhaps its metabolites, and how often have you actually found them?? They are there, but they're buried. Something as important as this should certainly be highlighted in some way.

The "Foreword" explains that the PDR is constrained in its content: various aspects are required to be "same in language and emphasis" as the approved labeling for the products (including such things as use of boldface). But look -- the boldface was indeed added where mentioned above. I imagine this means it was also done on the product-labeling, probably in response to many voices that were raised. Perhaps the publisher could add its voice to further the efforts along such lines.

There are some seeming flaws that clearly aren't the fault of the publisher and are probably unavoidable. For example, despite the fact that seemingly anything and everything is mentioned as a possible side effect for every medication, common side effects sometimes are not mentioned at all. This reflects mainly failures of the medical literature, not a failure of this publisher, because if a side effect isn't mentioned prominently in the literature, understandably it might not find its way into the PDR. Secondly, oftentimes some major uses for a medication are not mentioned, but this reflects the absence of official approval for those uses.

Some caveats for consumers: The listed dosage ranges for any given medication are sometimes too limited. Lower or higher dosages may be right for some people. And also, do beware of those endless lists of possible side effects. Remember that these aren't necessarily things that will happen; they only MIGHT happen. (Many of them rarely if ever are caused by the medications.) And sometimes the lists fail to include things that DO happen! If you are convinced that a medication has done something to you and it's not mentioned in the PDR, you still could very well be right. But, don't assume that something IS happening just because it's mentioned on that endless list!

The improvements in this important reference are much appreciated. And there is clear room for further improvement. Bureaucracies do not necessarily move quickly or easily, but hopefully additional progress can be made. And if indeed the publisher and its fellow parties have listened to voices such as ours, we are very grateful.

There are a lot of drug reference books. Many, if not most, are quite good. It depends more on how you like your information organized than anything else. The PDR is not designed to be carried in your pocket, it designed to be...well, exhaustive and filled with virtually all the data about the given drug. But regardless of what you think about the PDR, one thing is certain: The PDR has become a gold standard among practioners and is relied upon heavily by physicians.

Great for your library and a must for the advance herbist!

This Thomson Healthcare edition of Physicians' Desk Reference 2004 is a specifically designed professional reference for physicians and the medical community, and is updated yearly. Private practice, hospital, pharmacy, clinic, medical training centers and academic health libraries and health reference collections will find it an indispensable reference. This 58th edition lists all pharmaceutical manufacturers with address, phones and emergency contacts, includes products by category, and provides a diagnostic product information section which includes dosing instructions in Spanish, special notations on controlled substances, and FDA contacts. The extensive reference does require an in-depth knowledge of medicine for best access, making it a highly recommended pick for medical library holdings who will consider it a standard acquisition; but plenty of public and college-level libraries will find their patrons referring to it as well. Highly recommended.