Quality and Usability of Common Drug Information Databases: RESULTS

1 Jan
2011

clinical decision support tools

Characteristics of Study Participants

Most of the study participants reported that they consulted drug information databases at least daily in their practice, with 23 (88%) reporting prior access to Micromedex and half or fewer reporting prior access to either Lexi-Comp Online or Clinical Pharmacology (Table 2).

Database Quality

Lexi-Comp Online received the highest mean quality score (2.6), followed by Micromedex (2.2) and Clinical Pharmacology (1.6), although the differences among the databases were not statistically significant (Table 3). Lack of Canadian content in Clinical Pharmacology was a major distinguishing difference between this database and Lexi-Comp Online in the investigators’ assessment. Thematic analysis of study participants’ comments (Table 4) confirmed this deficiency as a distinguishing feature between Clinical Pharma­cology and the other databases.

Database Performance

Lexi-Comp Online received the highest mean performance score (2.7), followed by Clinical Pharmacology (2.4) and Micromedex (2.3), when used to answer a set of 15 drug information questions covering 17 different categories of drug information, although the differences among the databases were not statistically significant (Table 3). However, some of the differences between databases in terms of mean perfor­mance scores within individual drug information categories were statistically significant (data not shown). For example, Micromedex performed worse than the other databases in the categories for excipient information and drug use in pregnancy, but performed better than the other databases in the adverse drug reaction category. Lexi-Comp Online outperformed the other databases in 5 of the 17 drug information categories in this study: drug interactions, monitoring, pharmacology, foreign/Canadian/newly approved drugs, and herbal/nonpre- scription drugs. kamagra soft tablets

Table 2. Characteristics of Study Participants

Characteristic

No. (%) of

Participants

Time in pharmacy practice(n= 25)

0-5years

8 (32)

5-15years

10 (40)

> 15years

7 (28)

Level of pharmacy training (n = 26)

Bachelor degree

8 (31)

Residency

10 (38)

PharmD

7 (27)

Other

1 (4)

Frequency of use of drug information

databases (n = 25)

More than once a day

14 (56)

Once a day

8 (32)

Once a week

1 (4)

Once a month or less

2 (8)

Prior* access to drug information

databases(n= 26)

Clinical Pharmacology

13 (50)

Lexi-Comp Online

11 (42)

Micromedex

23 (88)

Database Usability

Pharmacology (3.6) and Micromedex (3.1) (p < 0.05) (Table 3). Micromedex received significantly lower scores than the other databases in the layout, navigation, and speed domains, which contributed to its significantly lower overall usability score (3.4) relative to both Clinical Pharmacology (4.0) and Lexi-Comp Online (4.0) (p < 0.05). Thematic analysis of comments from study participants confirmed the findings of the quantitative evaluation of usability, indicating that poor database layout, difficult navigation, and slow speed differenti­ated Micromedex from both Clinical Pharmacology and Lexi-Comp Online (Table 4).  Viagra Super Active

Table 3. Assessment of Quality, Performance, and Usability of the 3 Online Drug Information Databases

Characteristic

Database; Mean Rating ± 95% Confidence Interval

Clinical Pharmacology

Lexi-Comp Online

Micromedex


Quality


1.6
±
1.0


2.6 ± 0.8


2.2 ±
0.4


Performance


2.4
±
0.4


2.7 ± 0.2


2.3 ± 0.3


Overall usability


4.0 ± 0.2


4.0 ± 0.2


3.4
±
0.3*


Layout


4.2 ± 0.4


3.8 ± 0.4


3.2 ± 0.4*


Navigation


4.2 ± 0.3


3.9 ± 0.4


3.1 ± 0.4*


Speed


4.4
±
0.3


4.3 ± 0.3


2.8 ± 0.5*


Accuracy of content


4.2 ± 0.3


4.3 ± 0.3


4.1
±
0.4


Amount of information


3.2 ± 0.3


3.3 ± 0.3


3.5 ±
0.4


Timeliness of information


4.1
± 0.3


4.4
±
0.2


3.8 ±
0.4


User satisfaction


3.6 ± 0.3


4.1
± 0.2*


3.1 ± 0.4


Mean rank score


1.9
±
0.4


1.6
±
0.3


2.5 ± 0.2*

Users’ Preferences

On the basis of users’ rankings of the databases, where 1 represented the most preferred database and 3 the least pre­ferred, Micromedex received a significantly worse mean rank score (2.5) than the other 2 databases (p < 0.05) (Table 3). Although the mean rank scores for Lexi-Comp Online (1.6) and Clinical Pharmacology (1.9) were not statistically different from each other, Lexi-Comp Online was ranked as the most preferred database by the majority of users and was ranked as the least preferred database less frequently than Clinical Pharmacology and Micromedex (Figure 1).  canadian pharmacy generic viagra

Table 4. Thematic Analysis of Study Participants’ Comments about Their Experience with Each Drug

Clinical Pharmacology

Lexi-Comp Online

Micromedex


Pros


Good layout Easy to navigate


Easy to navigate Concise information


Comprehensive, detailed information


Cons


Lacks Canadian content


Initially confusing to use


Navigation not intuitive Very slow

In subgroup analyses, the mean rank scores for each database were not significantly different between subgroups of users stratified by number of years in practice or level of pharmacy training attained (data not shown). Users reporting access to a particular database before participating in this study tended to rank that database higher than users reporting no prior access, although these differences were not statistically significant. Within all subgroups of pharmacist users, Micromedex received the lowest mean rank scores of the 3 databases.

Figure 1. Distribution of database rankings

Figure 1. Distribution of database rankings according to users’ preferences.

top