OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the RxNorm standardized drug nomenclature for representing ambulatory e-prescriptions. METHODS: Using a sample of 19743 primary care e-prescriptions, we estimated the coverage rate of RxNorm for representing clinical drugs, measured the 6-month replacement rate for RxNorm concepts, assessed the consistency of two independent concept mappings, and investigated inconsistent mappings. RESULTS: RxNorm contained concepts for nearly all prescriptions in the sample (99.995%). Of 1419 concepts used, 8.1% were replaced between April and October 2009. Independent mappings produced different concepts for 676 e-prescriptions (3.4%), but most differences would have low clinical significance. Most mismatches were related to the use of extended-release form concepts with no duration specified, inhalers vs. their contents, and clinically inert salts. CONCLUSIONS: RxNorm provides concepts covering nearly all ambulatory e-prescriptions in this setting. Independent mappings were relatively consistent. Improvements could be made by enabling selection of the most-specific concepts when broader prescribable concepts exist.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the RxNorm standardized drug nomenclature for representing ambulatory e-prescriptions. METHODS: Using a sample of 19743 primary care e-prescriptions, we estimated the coverage rate of RxNorm for representing clinical drugs, measured the 6-month replacement rate for RxNorm concepts, assessed the consistency of two independent concept mappings, and investigated inconsistent mappings. RESULTS: RxNorm contained concepts for nearly all prescriptions in the sample (99.995%). Of 1419 concepts used, 8.1% were replaced between April and October 2009. Independent mappings produced different concepts for 676 e-prescriptions (3.4%), but most differences would have low clinical significance. Most mismatches were related to the use of extended-release form concepts with no duration specified, inhalers vs. their contents, and clinically inert salts. CONCLUSIONS: RxNorm provides concepts covering nearly all ambulatory e-prescriptions in this setting. Independent mappings were relatively consistent. Improvements could be made by enabling selection of the most-specific concepts when broader prescribable concepts exist.
Authors: Parastou Donyai; Kara O'Grady; Ann Jacklin; Nick Barber; Bryony Dean Franklin Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2007-07-27 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Jesse I Wolfstadt; Jerry H Gurwitz; Terry S Field; Monica Lee; Sunila Kalkar; Wei Wu; Paula A Rochon Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Yogini Hariprasad Jani; Maisoon Abdullah Ghaleb; Stephen D Marks; Judith Cope; Nick Barber; Ian Chi Kei Wong Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2007-11-19 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Corey A Lester; Allen J Flynn; Vincent D Marshall; Scott Rochowiak; Brigid Rowell; James P Bagian Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-08-16 Impact factor: 7.942
Authors: Jyotishman Pathak; Kent R Bailey; Calvin E Beebe; Steven Bethard; David C Carrell; Pei J Chen; Dmitriy Dligach; Cory M Endle; Lacey A Hart; Peter J Haug; Stanley M Huff; Vinod C Kaggal; Dingcheng Li; Hongfang Liu; Kyle Marchant; James Masanz; Timothy Miller; Thomas A Oniki; Martha Palmer; Kevin J Peterson; Susan Rea; Guergana K Savova; Craig R Stancl; Sunghwan Sohn; Harold R Solbrig; Dale B Suesse; Cui Tao; David P Taylor; Les Westberg; Stephen Wu; Ning Zhuo; Christopher G Chute Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-11-04 Impact factor: 4.497