3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Tertiary drug information sources for treatment and prevention of COVID-19

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective:

          To evaluate tertiary drug information databases in terms of scope, consistency of content, and completeness of COVID-19 drug information.

          Methods:

          Five electronic drug information databases: Clinical Pharmacology, Lexi-Drugs, AHFS DI (American Hospital Formulary Service Drug Information), eFacts and Comparisons, and Micromedex In-Depth Answers, were evaluated in this cross-sectional evaluation study, with data gathered from October 2021 through February 2022. Two study investigators independently extracted data (parallel extraction) from each resource. Descriptive statistics were primarily used to evaluate scope (i.e., whether the resource addresses use of the medication for treatment or prevention of COVID-19) and completeness of content (i.e., whether full information is provided related to the use of the medication for treatment or prevention of COVID-19) based on a 10-point scale. To analyze consistency among resources for scope, the Fleiss multi-rater kappa was used. To analyze consistency among resources for type of recommendation (i.e., in favor, insufficient evidence, against), a two-way mixed effects intraclass coefficient was calculated.

          Results:

          A total of 46 drug monographs, including 3 vaccination monographs, were evaluated. Use of the agents for treatment of COVID-19 was most frequently addressed in Lexi-Drugs (73.9%), followed by eFacts and Comparisons (71.7%), and Micromedex (54.3%). The highest overall median completeness score was held by AHFS DI followed by Micromedex, and Clinical Pharmacology. There was moderate consistency in terms of scope (kappa 0.490, 95% CI 0.399-0.581, p<0.001) and recommendations (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.518, 95% CI 0.385-0.651, p<0.001).

          Conclusion:

          Scope and completeness results varied by resource, with moderate consistency of content among resources.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          How COVID-19 has fundamentally changed clinical research in global health

          Summary COVID-19 has had negative repercussions on the entire global population. Despite there being a common goal that should have unified resources and efforts, there have been an overwhelmingly large number of clinical trials that have been registered that are of questionable methodological quality. As the final paper of this Series, we discuss how the medical research community has responded to COVID-19. We recognise the incredible pressure that this pandemic has put on researchers, regulators, and policy makers, all of whom were doing their best to move quickly but safely in a time of tremendous uncertainty. However, the research community's response to the COVID-19 pandemic has prominently highlighted many fundamental issues that exist in clinical trial research under the current system and its incentive structures. The COVID-19 pandemic has not only re-emphasised the importance of well designed randomised clinical trials but also highlighted the need for large-scale clinical trials structured according to a master protocol in a coordinated and collaborative manner. There is also a need for structures and incentives to enable faster data sharing of anonymised datasets, and a need to provide similar opportunities to those in high-income countries for clinical trial research in low-resource regions where clinical trial research receives considerably less research funding.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Clinical decision support tools: analysis of online drug information databases

            Background Online drug information databases are used to assist in enhancing clinical decision support. However, the choice of which online database to consult, purchase or subscribe to is likely made based on subjective elements such as history of use, familiarity, or availability during professional training. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical decision support tools for drug information by systematically comparing the most commonly used online drug information databases. Methods Five commercially available and two freely available online drug information databases were evaluated according to scope (presence or absence of answer), completeness (the comprehensiveness of the answers), and ease of use. Additionally, a composite score integrating all three criteria was utilized. Fifteen weighted categories comprised of 158 questions were used to conduct the analysis. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square were used to summarize the evaluation components and make comparisons between databases. Scheffe's multiple comparison procedure was used to determine statistically different scope and completeness scores. The composite score was subjected to sensitivity analysis to investigate the effect of the choice of percentages for scope and completeness. Results The rankings for the databases from highest to lowest, based on composite scores were Clinical Pharmacology, Micromedex, Lexi-Comp Online, Facts & Comparisons 4.0, Epocrates Online Premium, RxList.com, and Epocrates Online Free. Differences in scope produced three statistical groupings with Group 1 (best) performers being: Clinical Pharmacology, Micromedex, Facts & Comparisons 4.0, Lexi-Comp Online, Group 2: Epocrates Premium and RxList.com and Group 3: Epocrates Free (p < 0.05). Completeness scores were similarly stratified. Collapsing the databases into two groups by access (subscription or free), showed the subscription databases performed better than the free databases in the measured criteria (p < 0.001). Conclusion Online drug information databases, which belong to clinical decision support, vary in their ability to answer questions across a range of categories.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Comparison of Nine Tools for Screening Drug-Drug Interactions of Oral Oncolytics

              Purpose: Patients with cancer are an especially vulnerable population to potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs). This makes it important to adequately screen them for DDIs. The objective of this study was to compare the abilities of nine DDI screening tools to detect clinically relevant interactions with oral oncolytics. Methods: Subscription-based tools (ie, PEPID, Micromedex, Lexicomp, Facts & Comparisons) and free tools (ie, Epocrates Free, Medscape, Drugs.com, RxList, WebMD) were compared for their abilities to detect clinically relevant DDIs for 145 drug pairs including an oral oncology agent. Clinical relevance was determined by a pharmacist using Stockley’s Drug Interactions. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each tool, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV), and then compared grouped by free or subscription-based tools for the secondary analysis and analyzed via generalized estimating equations. Results: For individual metrics, PPV had overall higher values (0.88 to 0.97) relative to the low values included for sensitivity (0.65 to 0.96), specificity (0.53 to 0.93) and NPV (0.38 to 0.83). The top-performing subscription and free tools, Lexicomp and Drugs.com, had no statistically significant differences in performance. Overall, subscription tools had a significantly higher sensitivity (0.85 ± 0.017 v 0.78 ± 0.017; P = .0082) and NPV (0.57 ± 0.039 v 0.48 ± 0.032; P = .031) than free tools. No differences were observed between the specificity and PPV. Conclusion: Due to the low performance of some tools for sensitivity, specificity, and NPV, individual performance should be examined and prioritized on the basis of the intended use when selecting a DDI tool. If a strong-performing subscription-based tool is unavailable, a strong-performing free option, like Drugs.com, is available.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Med Libr Assoc
                J Med Libr Assoc
                jmla
                Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA
                University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
                1536-5050
                1558-9439
                2 October 2023
                2 October 2023
                : 111
                : 4
                : 783-791
                Affiliations
                [1 ] robert.beckett@ 123456parkview.com , Clinical Standard Coordinator, Parkview Health, Fort Wayne, IN.
                [2 ] YBrattain2024@ 123456manchester.edu , Manchester University College of Health Sciences and Pharmacy, Fort Wayne, IN.
                [3 ] judytruong@ 123456creighton.edu , Drug Information Resident, Creighton University School of Pharmacy and Health Professions, Omaha, NE.
                [4 ] genevieve.engle@ 123456belmont.edu , Director of the Drug Information Center and Associate Professor, Belmont University College of Pharmacy, Nashville, TN.
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6487-6683
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0977-5067
                Article
                jmla.2023.1662
                10.5195/jmla.2023.1662
                10621729
                c578a9cf-be19-4d30-abec-eb5c6a5f31cd
                Copyright © 2023 Robert D. Beckett, Yashawna Brattain, Judy Truong, Genevieve Engle

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

                History
                : December 2022
                : July 2023
                Categories
                Original Investigation

                drug information,tertiary databases,covid-19
                drug information, tertiary databases, covid-19

                Comments

                Comment on this article