OBJECTIVE: To identify drug interaction databases (DID) and assess the quality of their structures. METHOD: A search was made of the literature for DID and a series of exclusion and structural quality criteria were defined (at least four quality criteria: Classification according to severity, classification according to level of evidence, bibliographical reference data, description of clinical management and 11 criteria used for weighting). The level of compliance of every DID with the criteria defined was analysed, together with the level of compliance of each criteria in each DID. RESULTS: A total of 54 DID were identified, 30 of which complied with exclusion criteria and 15 of which did not meet the minimum criteria. The rest of the criteria were evaluated in nine DID: Bot-plus and Medinteract (100 %), SEFH Guide, Lexi-interact and Medscape (89 %), Hansten (83 %), Micromedex and Stockley (78 %), Drug Interactions Facts (68 %). Ninety-two per cent of the DID describe the mechanism of action, 87 % classify the information according to the active ingredient, 75 % do not state they have any conflict of interest, classify according to level of severity, have electronic format and are easy to search. A total of 67 % are specific DID, 62 % are classified according to level of evidence, contain bibliographical references and describe clinical management. CONCLUSIONS: A third of the DID comply with the minimum criteria. Differences were observed in the level and compliance criteria among Spanish and foreign DID. Some of the main DID used as references in the bibliography have significant structural defects: no web presentation, no multi-check function and others.
OBJECTIVE: To identify drug interaction databases (DID) and assess the quality of their structures. METHOD: A search was made of the literature for DID and a series of exclusion and structural quality criteria were defined (at least four quality criteria: Classification according to severity, classification according to level of evidence, bibliographical reference data, description of clinical management and 11 criteria used for weighting). The level of compliance of every DID with the criteria defined was analysed, together with the level of compliance of each criteria in each DID. RESULTS: A total of 54 DID were identified, 30 of which complied with exclusion criteria and 15 of which did not meet the minimum criteria. The rest of the criteria were evaluated in nine DID: Bot-plus and Medinteract (100 %), SEFH Guide, Lexi-interact and Medscape (89 %), Hansten (83 %), Micromedex and Stockley (78 %), Drug Interactions Facts (68 %). Ninety-two per cent of the DID describe the mechanism of action, 87 % classify the information according to the active ingredient, 75 % do not state they have any conflict of interest, classify according to level of severity, have electronic format and are easy to search. A total of 67 % are specific DID, 62 % are classified according to level of evidence, contain bibliographical references and describe clinical management. CONCLUSIONS: A third of the DID comply with the minimum criteria. Differences were observed in the level and compliance criteria among Spanish and foreign DID. Some of the main DID used as references in the bibliography have significant structural defects: no web presentation, no multi-check function and others.
Authors: María Espinosa-Bosch; Bernardo Santos-Ramos; María Victoria Gil-Navarro; María Dolores Santos-Rubio; Roberto Marín-Gil; Paloma Villacorta-Linaza Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2012-09-11
Authors: Olga Morales-Ríos; Luis Jasso-Gutiérrez; Alfonso Reyes-López; Juan Garduño-Espinosa; Onofre Muñoz-Hernández Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 3.240