Evaluation of resources for analyzing drug interactions
OBJECTIVE: The research sought to evaluate seven drug information resources, specifically designed for analyzing drug interactions for scope, completeness, and ease of use, and determine the consistency of content among the seven resources.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted where 100 drug-drug and drug-dietary supplement interactions were analyzed using 7 drug information resources: Lexicomp Interactions module, Micromedex Drug Interactions, Clinical Pharmacology Drug Interaction Report, Facts & Comparisons eAnswers, Stockley's Drug Interactions (10th edition), Drug Interactions Analysis and Management (2014), and Drug Interaction Facts (2015). The interaction sample was developed based on published resources and peer input. Two independent reviewers gathered data for each interaction from each of the 7 resources using a common form.
RESULTS: Eighty-two drug-drug and 18 drug-dietary supplement interactions were analyzed. Scope scores were higher for Lexicomp Interactions (97.0%), Clinical Pharmacology Drug Interaction Report (97.0%), and Micromedex Drug Interactions (93.0%) compared to all other resources (p<0.05 for each comparison). Overall completeness scores were higher for Micromedex Drug Interactions (median 5, interquartile range [IQR] 4 to 5) compared to all other resources (p<0.01 for each comparison) and were higher for Lexicomp Interactions (median 4, IQR 4 to 5), Facts & Comparisons eAnswers (median 4, IQR 4 to 5), and Drug Interaction Facts (4, IQR 4 to 5) compared to all other resources, except Micromedex (p<0.05 for each comparison). Ease of use, in terms of time to locate information and time to gather information, was similar among resources. Consistency score was higher for Micromedex (69.9%) compared to all other resources (p<0.05 for each comparison).
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical Pharmacology Drug Interaction Report, Lexicomp Interactions, and Micromedex Drug Interactions scored highest in scope. Micromedex Drug Interactions and Lexicomp Interactions scored highest in completeness. Consistency scores were overall low, but Micromedex Drug Interactions was the highest.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2016 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2016 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:104 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA - 104(2016), 4 vom: 30. Okt., Seite 290-295 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Patel, Risha I [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Themen: |
Drug-Dietary Supplement Interactions |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 13.07.2017 Date Revised 08.04.2022 published: Print Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
|---|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM266002595 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM266002595 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231224213530.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231224s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n0886.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM266002595 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)27822150 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Patel, Risha I |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Evaluation of resources for analyzing drug interactions |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2016 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 13.07.2017 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 08.04.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a OBJECTIVE: The research sought to evaluate seven drug information resources, specifically designed for analyzing drug interactions for scope, completeness, and ease of use, and determine the consistency of content among the seven resources | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted where 100 drug-drug and drug-dietary supplement interactions were analyzed using 7 drug information resources: Lexicomp Interactions module, Micromedex Drug Interactions, Clinical Pharmacology Drug Interaction Report, Facts & Comparisons eAnswers, Stockley's Drug Interactions (10th edition), Drug Interactions Analysis and Management (2014), and Drug Interaction Facts (2015). The interaction sample was developed based on published resources and peer input. Two independent reviewers gathered data for each interaction from each of the 7 resources using a common form | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: Eighty-two drug-drug and 18 drug-dietary supplement interactions were analyzed. Scope scores were higher for Lexicomp Interactions (97.0%), Clinical Pharmacology Drug Interaction Report (97.0%), and Micromedex Drug Interactions (93.0%) compared to all other resources (p<0.05 for each comparison). Overall completeness scores were higher for Micromedex Drug Interactions (median 5, interquartile range [IQR] 4 to 5) compared to all other resources (p<0.01 for each comparison) and were higher for Lexicomp Interactions (median 4, IQR 4 to 5), Facts & Comparisons eAnswers (median 4, IQR 4 to 5), and Drug Interaction Facts (4, IQR 4 to 5) compared to all other resources, except Micromedex (p<0.05 for each comparison). Ease of use, in terms of time to locate information and time to gather information, was similar among resources. Consistency score was higher for Micromedex (69.9%) compared to all other resources (p<0.05 for each comparison) | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: Clinical Pharmacology Drug Interaction Report, Lexicomp Interactions, and Micromedex Drug Interactions scored highest in scope. Micromedex Drug Interactions and Lexicomp Interactions scored highest in completeness. Consistency scores were overall low, but Micromedex Drug Interactions was the highest | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Evaluation Study | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Drug-Dietary Supplement Interactions | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Drug-Drug Interactions | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Pharmacy | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Beckett, Robert D |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA |d 2002 |g 104(2016), 4 vom: 30. Okt., Seite 290-295 |w (DE-627)NLM117249351 |x 1558-9439 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:104 |g year:2016 |g number:4 |g day:30 |g month:10 |g pages:290-295 |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 104 |j 2016 |e 4 |b 30 |c 10 |h 290-295 | ||