Suppr超能文献

治疗药物与滥用药物相互作用的药物信息资源评估。

Evaluation of drug information resources for interactions between therapeutic drugs and drugs of abuse.

出版信息

J Med Libr Assoc. 2020 Oct 1;108(4):584-590. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2020.969.

Abstract

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, and 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% () to 43.4% (Lexicomp Online). Completeness scores ranged from 2 (interquartile range [IQR] 0 to 3, ) to 5 (IQR 5 to 5, Micromedex, Facts & Comparisons eAnswers). Consistency scores ranged from 30.8% () to 87.1% (Clinical Pharmacology) for severity and from 15.4% (Facts & Comparisons eAnswers) to 71.4% () 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.

摘要

目的

本研究评估了即时资源在描述治疗药物与药物滥用(DoA)之间相互作用时的范围、完整性和一致性。

方法

本研究采用横断面评估方法,重点关注七种资源:临床药理学、事实与比较电子答案、Lexicomp Online、Micromedex、和。通过对三级文献和资源的回顾,以及向主题专家征求意见,开发了一组与临床相关的相互作用样本。对每种资源中每种相互作用的条目进行评估,以确定范围(即是否有相互作用的条目);完整性(即是否有信息涉及机制;临床效果、严重程度、行动过程和确定性,并以 5 分制的中位数评分来描述);以及在有条目记录的资源之间的一致性(即资源中的信息是否与多数资源相似)。

结果

经过主题专家审查,最终样本包含 159 种相互作用。范围评分范围从 0.6%(Lexicomp Online)到 43.4%(Lexicomp Online)。完整性评分范围从 2(四分位距 [IQR] 0 到 3,)到 5(Micromedex、事实与比较电子答案)。一致性评分范围从严重程度的 30.8%(Clinical Pharmacology)到 87.1%(Clinical Pharmacology),从行动过程的 15.4%(事实与比较电子答案)到 71.4%()。

结论

尽管药物与药物滥用相互作用的覆盖范围较低,且资源之间的内容往往不一致,但提供的信息通常较为完整。

相似文献

3
Evaluation of resources for analyzing drug interactions.分析药物相互作用的资源评估。
J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Oct;104(4):290-295. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.007.
7
Evaluation of Point-of-Care Resources for Dietary Supplement Information.用于膳食补充剂信息的即时护理资源评估。
J Evid Based Integr Med. 2018 Jan-Dec;23:2515690X18764844. doi: 10.1177/2515690X18764844.
8
Evaluation of frequently used drug interaction screening programs.常用药物相互作用筛查程序的评估。
Pharm World Sci. 2008 Aug;30(4):367-74. doi: 10.1007/s11096-008-9191-x. Epub 2008 Apr 16.

本文引用的文献

5
Drug Interactions With New Synthetic Opioids.新型合成阿片类药物的药物相互作用
Front Pharmacol. 2018 Oct 11;9:1145. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2018.01145. eCollection 2018.
7
Evaluation of resources for analyzing drug interactions.分析药物相互作用的资源评估。
J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Oct;104(4):290-295. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.007.
8
Evaluating drug-drug interaction information in NDF-RT and DrugBank.评估NDF-RT和药物银行中的药物相互作用信息。
J Biomed Semantics. 2015 May 11;6:19. doi: 10.1186/s13326-015-0018-0. eCollection 2015.
9
Drug-drug interaction software in clinical practice: a systematic review.临床实践中的药物相互作用软件:一项系统评价
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2015 Feb;71(2):131-42. doi: 10.1007/s00228-014-1786-7. Epub 2014 Dec 23.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验