Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 560–569 | Cite as

Online drug databases: a new method to assess and compare inclusion of clinically relevant information

  • Cristina SilvaEmail author
  • Paula Fresco
  • Joaquim Monteiro
  • Ana Cristina Ribeiro Rama
Research Article
  • 352 Downloads

Abstract

Background Evidence-Based Practice requires health care decisions to be based on the best available evidence. The model “Information Mastery” proposes that clinicians should use sources of information that have previously evaluated relevance and validity, provided at the point of care. Drug databases (DB) allow easy and fast access to information and have the benefit of more frequent content updates. Relevant information, in the context of drug therapy, is that which supports safe and effective use of medicines. Accordingly, the European Guideline on the Summary of Product Characteristics (EG-SmPC) was used as a standard to evaluate the inclusion of relevant information contents in DB. Objective To develop and test a method to evaluate relevancy of DB contents, by assessing the inclusion of information items deemed relevant for effective and safe drug use. Method Hierarchical organisation and selection of the principles defined in the EGSmPC; definition of criteria to assess inclusion of selected information items; creation of a categorisation and quantification system that allows score calculation; calculation of relative differences (RD) of scores for comparison with an “ideal” database, defined as the one that achieves the best quantification possible for each of the information items; pilot test on a sample of 9 drug databases, using 10 drugs frequently associated in literature with morbidity-mortality and also being widely consumed in Portugal. Main outcome measure Calculate individual and global scores for clinically relevant information items of drug monographs in databases, using the categorisation and quantification system created. Results A—Method development: selection of sections, subsections, relevant information items and corresponding requisites; system to categorise and quantify their inclusion; score and RD calculation procedure. B—Pilot test: calculated scores for the 9 databases; globally, all databases evaluated significantly differed from the “ideal” database; some DB performed better but performance was inconsistent at subsections level, within the same DB. Conclusion The method developed allows quantification of the inclusion of relevant information items in DB and comparison with an “ideal database”. It is necessary to consult diverse DB in order to find all the relevant information needed to support clinical drug use.

Keywords

Drug databases Drug information Evaluation Medicine information Relevancy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to express our thanks to the companies Thomson Reuters—MICROMEDEX® 2.0 (Healthcare Series)/Logiser, Lexi-Comp and Facts & Comparisons for the kindly grant of free access trials to databases. We are also very thankful to IMS Portugal for providing data on drug sales in Portugal.

Funding

The authors received no funding.

Conflict of interests

The authors have no conflict of interests to declare.

References

  1. 1.
    Rama AC, Isabel O, Silva CM, Fernandez-Llimos F, Figueiredo IV, Caramona MM. Development of a multidimensional system for classification and management of health information: applying to clinical information. Acta Med Port. 2007;20(6):567–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gray JAM. Where’s the chief knowledge officer? To manage the most precious resource of all. BMJ. 1998;317(7162):832.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dawes M, et al. Sicily statement on evidence-based practice. BMC Med Educ. 2005;5(1):1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ebell MH. Point-of-care information that changes practice: it’s closer than we think. Fam Med. 2003;35(4):261–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Slawson DC, Shaughnessy AF. Obtaining useful information from expert based sources. BMJ. 1997;314(7085):947–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheng GY. A study of clinical questions posed by hospital clinicians. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004;92(4):445–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davies K. The information-seeking behaviour of doctors: a review of the evidence. Health Info Libr J. 2007;24(2):78–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ely JW, et al. Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care. BMJ. 1999;319(7206):358–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith R. What clinical information do doctors need? BMJ. 1996;313(7064):1062–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    European Commission—Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General. A guideline on summary of product characteristics. 2009. September 2009 [cited October 2009]; Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-2/c/smpc_guideline_rev2_en.pdf.
  11. 11.
    Clauson KA, Marsh WA, Polen HH, Seamon MJ, Ortiz BI. Clinical decision support tools: analysis of online drug information databases. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007;7:7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Peak AP, Girt AP. Comparison of tertiary drug information databases. Pharmacother. 2005;25:1431–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kupferberg N, Hartel LJ. Evaluation of five full-text drug databases by pharmacy students, faculty, and librarians: do the groups agree? J Med Libr Assoc. 2004;92(1):66–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Polen HH, Zapantis A, Clauson KA, Jebrock J, Paris M. Ability of online drug databases to assist in clinical decision-making with infectious disease therapies. BMC Infect Dis. 2008;8:153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristina Silva
    • 4
    Email author
  • Paula Fresco
    • 1
  • Joaquim Monteiro
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ana Cristina Ribeiro Rama
    • 3
  1. 1.REQUIMTE/FARMA, Laboratory of Pharmacology, Department of Drug Sciences, Faculty of PharmacyPorto UniversityPortoPortugal
  2. 2.Advanced Institute of Health Sciences-North (ISCS-N)ParedesPortugal
  3. 3.Faculty of Pharmacy, Centre for Pharmaceutical StudiesCoimbra UniversityCoimbraPortugal
  4. 4.Laboratory of Pharmacology, Department of Drug Sciences, Faculty of PharmacyPorto UniversityPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations