| Literature DB >> 33167980 |
Jeremy Y Ng1, Vanessa Munford2, Harmy Thakar2.
Abstract
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.Entities:
Keywords: Adverse events; Complementary and alternative medicine; Herb-drug interactions; Herbal therapies; Online resources; Quality assessment; Side effects; eHealth
Year: 2020 PMID: 33167980 PMCID: PMC7653751 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-020-01298-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak ISSN: 1472-6947 Impact factor: 2.796
Fig. 1PRISMA diagram. AMED Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, CADTH Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, CAM complementary and alternative medicine
Eligible article characteristics (n = 21)
| References | Article title | Study country | Study design | Article type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allais et al. [ | Access to databases in complementary medicine | Italy | Review of medical information resource(s) | Review |
| Archer et al. [ | Development of an alert system to detect drug interactions with herbal supplements using medical record data | USA | Development of alert system prototype | Original Research |
| Boddy et al. [ | Review of reliable information sources related to integrative oncology | UK | Review of medical information resource(s) | Review |
| Boehmer et al. [ | Evaluating the value of a web-based natural medicine clinical decision tool at an academic medical center | USA | Evaluation of web-based clinical decision tool | Original Research |
| Clauson et al. [ | Clinical decision support tools: Personal digital assistant versus online dietary supplement databases | USA | Review and evaluation of databases and personal digital assistants | Review |
| Faubert et al. [ | A pilot study to compare natural health product-drug interactions in two databases in Canada | Canada | Evaluation of databases | Original Research |
| Fischer et al. [ | Complementary and alternative medical reference software for personal digital assistants: Evidence of clinical applicability | USA | Evaluation of databases | Original Research |
| Fitzpatrick et al. [ | Natural standard database | USA | Review of medical information resource(s) | Review |
| Gregory et al. [ | Characterization of complementary and alternative medicine-related consultations in an academic drug information service | USA | Analysis of complementary and alternative medicine drug information consultations | Original Research |
| Jackson [ | An overview of information resources for herbal medicinals and dietary supplements | USA | Review of medical information resource(s) | Review |
| Jackson et al. [ | Resources for information on herbal medicinals and dietary supplements | USA | Review of medical information resource(s) | Review |
| Kiefer et al. [ | Finding information on herbal therapy: A guide to useful sources for clinicians | USA | Review of medical information resource(s) | Review |
| Meyer et al. [ | Evaluation of herbal-drug interaction data in tertiary resources | USA | Review of medical information resource(s) | Review |
| Molassiotis et al. [ | Quality and safety issues of web-based information about herbal medicines in the treatment of cancer | China, UK | Review of medical information resource(s) | Review |
| Motl et al. [ | Health information web sites by therapeutic category for healthcare professionals | USA | Review of medical information resource(s) | Review |
| Sun et al. [ | Development of quantitative structure–activity relationship models to predict potential nephrotoxic ingredients in traditional chinese medicines | China | Development and testing of model | Original Research |
| Spanakis et al. [ | PharmActa: Empowering patients to avoid clinical significant drug-herb interactions | Greece | Evaluation of mobile app | Original Research |
| Sweet et al. [ | Usefulness of herbal and dietary supplement references | USA | Review of medical information resource(s) | Review |
| Tomasulo [ | Natural Standard–new integrative medicine database | USA | Review of medical information resource(s) | Review |
| Walker et al. [ | Evaluation of the ability of seven herbal resources to answer questions about herbal products asked in drug information centers | USA | Evaluation of databases | Original Research |
| Yap et al. [ | Utilizing mobile networks for the detection of clinically relevant interactions between chemotherapy regimens and complementary and alternative medicines | Singapore | Development of an iPhone app | Original Research |
Eligible online resource characteristics (n = 23)
| Name of online resource | Source eligible article(s) included in review | Online resource URL | Year established | Availability for anyone to use? | Type of developer | CAM only or CAM/conventional therapies? | How are CAM-specific adverse effects and side effects presented? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| About Herbs | Boddy et al. [ | Unclear | Yes, entirely free | Researchers | CAM only | Drug summaries (Professional and consumer versions) | |
| American Botanical Council | Fitzpatrick [ | 1988 | Yes, partially without subscription | Council | CAM only | Monographs | |
| Caremark Drug Interactions | Yap et al. [ | Unclear | Yes, entirely free | Company | Both | Drug interaction checker | |
| Clinical Pharmacology (also known as Gold Standard) | Gregory et al. [ | Unclear | Yes, but only with a subscription | Company | Both | Drug interaction checker; monographs | |
| Drug Information (formerly DrugDigest) | Motl et al. [ | Unclear | Yes, entirely free | Company | Both | Drug summaries | |
| Drug Product Database | Motl et al. [ | Unclear | Yes, entirely free | Government | Both | Monographs; safety update tables | |
| Drugs.com | Motl et al. [ | 2001 | Yes, entirely free | Company | Both | Drug interaction checker; monographs (professional and consumer versions) | |
| Electronic Medicines Compendium | Motl et al. [ | 1999 | Yes, entirely free | Company | Both | SmPC; patient leaflets; alert cards | |
| Epocrates (plus or pro) | Clauson et al. [ | Unclear | Yes, but only with a subscription | Company | Both | Drug interaction checker; monographs | |
| Herb-Drug Interactions, NCCIH Clinical Digest | Allais et al. [ | 2015 | Yes, entirely free | Government | CAM only | Summaries provided in an herbal digest | |
| Herbs at a Glance | Boddy et al. [ | Unclear | Yes, entirely free | Government | CAM only | Fact sheets | |
| HIV drug interactions | Motl et al. [ | 1999 | Yes, entirely free | Researchers | Both | Drug interaction checker; interaction charts | |
| IBM Micromedex (includes DrugDex, Drug-Reax, AltMedDex) | Clauson et al. [ | Mid-1970s | Yes, but only with a subscription | Company | Both | Drug interaction checker; monographs; patient fact sheets | |
| Lexi-Natural (includes LexiComp) | Clauson et al. [ | Unclear | Yes, but only with a subscription | Company | Both | Monographs; patient handouts | |
| MedicinesComplete (includes Herbal Medicines; formerly known as the British National Formulary) | Jackson [ | Unclear | Yes, but only with a subscription | Company | Both | Monographs | |
| Medscape | Motl et al. [ | 1995 | Yes, entirely free | Company | Both | Drug interaction checker; monographs | |
| Merck Manual | Motl et al. [ | 1999 | Yes, entirely free | Company | Both | Drug interaction checker; monographs (professional and consumer versions) | |
| National Cancer Institute | Boddy et al. [ | Unclear | Yes, entirely free | Government | CAM only | Drug summaries (professional and consumer versions) | |
| Natural Medicines (formerly Natural Medicine Comprehensive Database (NMCD) and Natural Standard Database (NSD)) (online and mobile app) | Archer et al. [ | Early 2000s | Yes, but only with a subscription | Company | CAM only | Drug interaction checker; monographs; patient handouts | |
| OncoRx Database (called Onco-Rx as a website, and OncoRx-MI as a mobile app) | Yap et al. [ | 2007 (website), unclear (mobile app) | Yes, but only with a subscription | Researchers | Both | Drug interaction checker | |
| PEPID Drug Information Database | Clauson et al. [ | Unclear | Yes, but only with a subscription | Company | Both | Drug interaction checker; patient education handouts; monographs | |
| RxList (owned by WebMD) | Motl et al. [ | 1995 | Yes, entirely free | Company | Both | Monographs | |
| RxMed | Motl et al. [ | 1994 | Yes, entirely free | Company | Both | Monographs |
DISCERN ratings
| DISCERN Question | About Herbs | American Botanical Council | Caremark Drug Inter-actions | Drug Infor-mation | Drug Product Database | Drugs.com | Electronic Medicines Compendium | Herbs at a Glance | Herb-Drug Inter-actions | HIV drug Inter-actions | Lexi-Natural | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Section 1: Is the publication reliable? | 1. Are the aims clear? | 5 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 4.5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| 2. Does it achieve its aims? | 5 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 3.5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
| 3. Is it relevant? | 4.5 | 5 | 4.5 | 2.5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4.5 | 3.5 | 4 | 5 | |
| 4. Is it clear what sources of information were used to compile the publication (other than the author or producer)? | 5 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 1.5 | 4.5 | 5 | 2.5 | 5 | |
| 5. Is it clear when the information used or reported in the publication was produced? | 5 | 5 | 2.5 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2.5 | 5 | |
| 6. Is it balanced and unbiased? | 5 | 5 | 2.5 | 3 | 4.5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 3.5 | 5 | |
| 7. Does it provide details of additional sources of support and information? | 4.5 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 4.5 | 5 | 2.5 | 5 | 5 | 2.5 | 5 | |
| 8. Does it refer to areas of uncertainty? | 5 | 5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 5 | 5 | 3.5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
| Section 2: How good is the quality of information on treatment choices? | 9. Does it describe how each treatment works? | 5 | 5 | 3 | 2.5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 2 | 4 |
| 10. Does it describe the benefits of each treatment? | 5 | 4.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 4.5 | 5 | 4.5 | 5 | 1 | 5 | |
| 11. Does it describe the risks of each treatment? | 5 | 4.5 | 5 | 2.5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4.5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | |
| 12. Does it describe what would happen if no treatment is used? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 13. Does it describe how the treatment choices affect overall quality of life? | 1 | 2.5 | 2 | 3 | 2.5 | 3 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1 | 2 | |
| 14. Is it clear that there may be more than one possible treatment choice? | 1.5 | 3.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 4.5 | 4 | 4 | 2.5 | 3 | 2.5 | |
| 15. Does it provide support for shared decision-making? | 3.5 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 4 | |
| Section 3: Overall Rating of the Publication | 16. Based on the answers to all of the above questions, rate the overall quality of the publication as a source of information about treatment choices | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4.5 | 3.5 | 4 | 3.5 | 3 | 4.5 |
| Total DISCERN score (sum of Q1–15) | 61.00 | 63.50 | 42.50 | 33.0 | 50.00 | 66.50 | 53.50 | 60.00 | 58.00 | 43.00 | 66.50 | |