BACKGROUND: Pharmacists' access to user-friendly electronic drug information databases that can quickly provide accurate, up-to-date information has become increasingly important. Unfortunately, decisions about purchasing subscriptions to such services are not always made objectively. Previously published studies have compared drug information databases, but there are no recent analyses from the perspective of Canadian hospital pharmacists. OBJECTIVE: To determine overall preferences among the most commonly used online drug information databases, based on an appraisal of the quality, performance, and usability of the databases and users' preferences. METHODS: Qualitative and quantitative analyses with descriptive and inferential statistics were used to compare the Clinical Pharmacology, Lexi-Comp Online, and Micromedex databases. Quality scores were determined from investigators' consensus ratings across 5 categories of quality indicators. Performance scores were determined according to the ability of a database to answer 15 clinical drug information questions. Usability scores were determined from user ratings in 7 domains. Users' preferences were assessed through rankings of the databases by 26 practising pharmacists. RESULTS: The highest quality and performance scores were awarded to Lexi-Comp Online, whereas Micromedex received the lowest overall usability score, attributable to poor scores for layout, navigation, and speed. Lack of Canadian content was identified as a major disadvantage of the Clinical Pharmacology database. Users ranked Micromedex significantly lower than the other databases, whereas the majority of users ranked Lexi-Comp Online as the most preferred database. CONCLUSIONS: Lexi-Comp Online appeared to be the most preferred database, whereas Micromedex was clearly the least preferred database. These findings should be considered in future decisions about purchasing database subscriptions.
BACKGROUND: Pharmacists' access to user-friendly electronic drug information databases that can quickly provide accurate, up-to-date information has become increasingly important. Unfortunately, decisions about purchasing subscriptions to such services are not always made objectively. Previously published studies have compared drug information databases, but there are no recent analyses from the perspective of Canadian hospital pharmacists. OBJECTIVE: To determine overall preferences among the most commonly used online drug information databases, based on an appraisal of the quality, performance, and usability of the databases and users' preferences. METHODS: Qualitative and quantitative analyses with descriptive and inferential statistics were used to compare the Clinical Pharmacology, Lexi-Comp Online, and Micromedex databases. Quality scores were determined from investigators' consensus ratings across 5 categories of quality indicators. Performance scores were determined according to the ability of a database to answer 15 clinical drug information questions. Usability scores were determined from user ratings in 7 domains. Users' preferences were assessed through rankings of the databases by 26 practising pharmacists. RESULTS: The highest quality and performance scores were awarded to Lexi-Comp Online, whereas Micromedex received the lowest overall usability score, attributable to poor scores for layout, navigation, and speed. Lack of Canadian content was identified as a major disadvantage of the Clinical Pharmacology database. Users ranked Micromedex significantly lower than the other databases, whereas the majority of users ranked Lexi-Comp Online as the most preferred database. CONCLUSIONS: Lexi-Comp Online appeared to be the most preferred database, whereas Micromedex was clearly the least preferred database. These findings should be considered in future decisions about purchasing database subscriptions.
Authors: Kevin A Clauson; Wallace A Marsh; Hyla H Polen; Matthew J Seamon; Blanca I Ortiz Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2007-03-08 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Gideon Stitt; Samuel Dubinsky; Andrea Edginton; Yuan-Shung V Huang; Athena F Zuppa; Kevin Watt; Kevin Downes Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 3.569