Web-based online resources about adverse interactions or side effects associated with complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review, summarization and quality assessment.

BACKGROUND: Given an increased global prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use, healthcare providers commonly seek CAM-related health information online. Numerous online resources containing CAM-specific information exist, many of which are readily available/accessible, containing information shareable with their patients. To the authors' knowledge, no study has summarized nor assessed the quality of content contained within these online resources for at least a decade, specifically pertaining to information about adverse effects or interactions. METHODS: This study provides summaries of web-based online resources that provide safety information on potential interactions or adverse effects of CAM. Specifically, clinicians are the intended users of these online resources containing patient information which they can then disseminate to their patients. All online resources were assessed for content quality using the validated rating tool, DISCERN. RESULTS: Of 21 articles identified in our previously published scoping review, 23 online resources were eligible. DISCERN assessments suggests that online resources containing CAM-specific information vary in quality. Summed DISCERN scores had a mean of 56.13 (SD = 10.25) out of 75. Online resources with the highest total DISCERN scores across all questions included Micromedex (68.50), Merck Manual (67.50) and Drugs.com (66.50). Online resources with the lowest total scores included Drug Information (33.00), Caremark Drug Interactions (42.50) and HIV Drug Interactions (43.00). The DISCERN questions that received the highest mean score across all online resources referred to whether the risks were described for each treatment (4.66), whether the aims were clear (4.58), whether the source achieved those aims (4.58), and whether the website referred to areas of uncertainty (4.58). The DISCERN questions that received the lowest mean score across all online resources assessed whether there was discussion about no treatment being used (1.29) and how treatment choices would affect quality of life (2.00). CONCLUSION: This study provides a comprehensive list of online resources containing CAM-specific information. Informed by the appraisal of these resources, this study provides a summarized list of high quality, evidence-based, online resources about CAM and CAM-related adverse effects. This list of recommended resources can thereby serve as a useful reference for clinicians, researchers, and patients.

eHealth technologies assisting in identifying potential adverse interactions with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) or standalone CAM adverse events or side effects: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: While there are several existing eHealth technologies for drug-drug interactions and stand-alone drug adverse effects, it appears that considerably less attention is focussed on that of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Despite poor knowledge of their potential interactions and side effects, many patients use CAM. This justifies the need to identify what eHealth technologies are assisting in identifying potential 1) adverse drug interactions with CAM, 2) adverse CAM-CAM interactions or 3) standalone CAM adverse events or side effects. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to identify eHealth technologies assisting in identifying potential adverse interactions with CAM or standalone CAM adverse events or side effects, following Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage scoping review framework. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and AMED databases and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health website were systematically searched. Eligible articles had to have assessed or referenced an eHealth technology assisting in identifying potential one or more of the three aforementioned items. We placed no eligibility restrictions on type of eHealth technology. RESULTS: Searches identified 3467 items, of which 2763 were unique, and 2674 titles and abstracts were eliminated, leaving 89 full-text articles to be considered. Of those, 48 were not eligible, leaving a total of 41 articles eligible for review. From these 41 articles, 69 unique eHealth technologies meeting our eligibility criteria were identified. Themes which emerged from our analysis included the following: the lack of recent reviews of CAM-related healthcare information; a large number of databases; and the presence of government adverse drug/event surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: The present scoping review is the first, to our knowledge, to provide a descriptive map of the literature and eHealth technologies relating to our research question. We highlight that while an ample number of resources are available to healthcare providers, researchers, and patients, we caution that the quality and update frequency for many of these resources vary widely, and until formally assessed, remain unknown. We identify that a need exists to conduct an updated and systematically-searched review of CAM-related healthcare or research resources, as well as develop guidance documents associated with the development and evaluation of CAM-related eHealth technologies.