Cited by 98Pharmacy and Medical PracticesPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesElectronic Health Records Systems

Evaluation of resources for analyzing drug interactions

Open access
Patel, Risha I., Beckett, Robert D.·2016·Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA

Abstract

Objective The research sought to evaluate seven drug information resources, specifically designed for analyzing drug interactions for scope, completeness, and ease of use, and determine the consistency of content among the seven resources. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted where 100 drug-drug and drug-dietary supplement interactions were analyzed using 7 drug information resources: Lexicomp Interactions module, Micromedex Drug Interactions, Clinical Pharmacology Drug Interaction Report, Facts & Comparisons eAnswers, Stockley's Drug Interactions (10th edition), Drug Interactions Analysis and Management (2014), and Drug Interaction Facts (2015). The interaction sample was developed based on published resources and peer input. Two independent reviewers gathered data for each interaction from each of the 7 resources using a common form. Results Eighty-two drug-drug and 18 drug-dietary supplement interactions were analyzed. Scope scores were higher for Lexicomp Interactions (97.0%), Clinical Pharmacology Drug Interaction Report (97.0%), and Micromedex Drug Interactions (93.0%) compared to all other resources ( p p p p Conclusions Clinical Pharmacology Drug Interaction Report, Lexicomp Interactions, and Micromedex Drug Interactions scored highest in scope. Micromedex Drug Interactions and Lexicomp Interactions scored highest in completeness. Consistency scores were overall low, but Micromedex Drug Interactions was the highest.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.007

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 11 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Patel, R. I., & Beckett, R. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Venue
Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA
Published
2016-10
Volume
104
Issue
4
Pages
290-295
ISSN
  • 1536-5050 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-9439
OpenAlex
W2551182653
Cited by
97
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4
FWCI
8.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
drug interactions, drug information resources, drug-drug interactions, information resource evaluation, content consistency, completeness, ease of use
MeSH terms
Drug Information Services, Drug Interactions, Humans, Reference Books, Databases, Factual

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review