Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros












Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Med Libr Assoc ; 108(4): 584-590, 2020 Oct 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33013215

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The study evaluated point-of-care resources for scope, completeness, and consistency of information describing interactions between therapeutic drugs and drugs of abuse (DoA). METHODS: A cross-sectional evaluation study was conducted focusing on seven resources: Clinical Pharmacology, Facts & Comparisons eAnswers, Lexicomp Online, Micromedex, Drug Interactions Analysis and Management, Drug Interaction Facts, and Stockley's Drug Interactions. A sample of clinically relevant interactions was developed through review of tertiary literature and resources, and input was solicited from subject matter experts. Entries from each resource for each interaction were evaluated for scope (i.e., whether there was an entry for the interaction); completeness (i.e., whether there was information addressing mechanism; clinical effects, severity, course of action, and level of certainty, described as a median rating on a 5-point scale); and consistency (i.e., whether the information in the resource was similar to the majority) among resources with an entry. RESULTS: Following review by subject matter experts, the final sample contained 159 interactions. Scope scores ranged from 0.6% (Drug Interactions Analysis and Management) to 43.4% (Lexicomp Online). Completeness scores ranged from 2 (interquartile range [IQR] 0 to 3, Stockley's Drug Interactions) to 5 (IQR 5 to 5, Drug Interaction Facts, Micromedex, Facts & Comparisons eAnswers). Consistency scores ranged from 30.8% (Stockley's Drug Interactions) to 87.1% (Clinical Pharmacology) for severity and from 15.4% (Facts & Comparisons eAnswers) to 71.4% (Drug Interaction Facts) for course of action. CONCLUSIONS: Although coverage of drug-DoA interactions was low and content was often inconsistent among resources, the provided information was generally complete.


Asunto(s)
Bases de Datos Factuales/normas , Servicios de Información sobre Medicamentos , Interacciones Farmacológicas , Estudios Transversales , Humanos , Sistemas de Atención de Punto
2.
J Med Libr Assoc ; 107(1): 62-71, 2019 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30598650

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The research evaluated point-of-care drug interaction resources for scope, completeness, and consistency in drug-ethanol and drug-tobacco content. METHODS: In a cross-sectional analysis, 2 independent reviewers extracted data for 108 clinically relevant interactions using 7 drug information resources (Clinical Pharmacology Drug Interaction Report, Facts & Comparisons eAnswers, Lexicomp Interactions, Micromedex Drug Interactions, Drug Interactions Analysis and Management, Drug Interaction Facts, and Stockley's Drug Interactions). Scope (presence of an entry), completeness (content describing mechanism, clinical effects, severity, level of certainty, and course of action for each present interaction; up to 1 point per assessed item for a total possible score of 5 points), and consistency (similarity among resources) were evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty-three drug-ethanol and 55 drug-tobacco interactions were analyzed. Drug-ethanol interaction entries were most commonly present in Lexicomp (84.9%), Clinical Pharmacology (83.0%), and Stockley's Drug Interactions (73.6%), compared to other resources (p<0.05). Drug-tobacco interactions were more often covered in Micromedex (56.4%), Stockley's Drug Interactions (56.4%), Drug Interaction Facts (43.6%), and Clinical Pharmacology (41.8%) (p<0.001). Overall completeness scores were higher for Lexicomp, Micromedex, Drug Interaction Facts, and Facts & Comparisons (median 5/5 points, interquartile range [IQR] 5 to 5, p<0.001) for drug-ethanol and for Micromedex (median 5/5 points, IQR 5 to 5, p<0.05) for drug-tobacco, compared to other resources. Drug Interaction Facts and Micromedex were among the highest scoring resources for both drug-ethanol (73.7%, 68.6%) and drug-tobacco (75.0%, 32.3%) consistency. CONCLUSIONS: Scope and completeness were high for drug-ethanol interactions, but low for drug-tobacco interactions. Consistency was highly variable across both interaction types.


Asunto(s)
Bases de Datos Factuales/normas , Servicios de Información sobre Medicamentos/normas , Interacciones Farmacológicas , Etanol/efectos adversos , Nicotiana/efectos adversos , Estudios Transversales , Humanos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...