Comparison of Critical Drug-Drug Interactions from the Department of Veteran Affairs to the Standard Reference Compendia
dc.contributor.advisor | Malone, Dan | en |
dc.contributor.author | Clauschee, Susan F. | |
dc.contributor.author | Turley, Matt | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2017-06-20T18:30:40Z | |
dc.date.available | 2017-06-20T18:30:40Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2008 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10150/624281 | |
dc.description | Class of 2008 Abstract | en |
dc.description.abstract | Objectives: The purpose of this study is to compare the critical drug-drug interaction alerting software at the Department of Veteran Affairs with Hansten and Horn's drug analysis and management (DIAM) and Micromedex®. Methods: The Department of Veterans Affairs supplied a list of drug-drug interacting (DDI) pairs. Each pair was labled as significant or critical. The critical interactions were included in the study (n=1018). Two researchers inputed the interactions into Micromedex and looked up the interactions in Hansten and Horn's drug interactions analysis and management (DIAM). A Kappa statistic was used to calculate the agreement between the 2 researchers. Results: The researchers differed in the number of interactions found to be "contraindicated" or "major" in Micromedex and "avoid" or "usually aviod" in DIAM (researcher 1= 683, 330, respectively; researcher 2= 672,176, respectively) with a Kappa of 0.9 for Micromedex and 0.57 for DIAM. Conclusions: Our study suggests that there is a difference between the VA drug interaction alerting system, Micromedex ® and DIAM in regards to the way they list interactions and their method of rating the level of severity of the interactions. Also, there may be a difference in the way each researcher interprets the information. | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en |
dc.publisher | The University of Arizona. | en |
dc.rights | Copyright © is held by the author. | en |
dc.rights.uri | http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ | |
dc.subject | Drug-Drug Interactions | en |
dc.subject | Department of Veteran Affairs | en |
dc.subject.mesh | Drug Interactions | en |
dc.subject.mesh | Hospitals, Veterans | en |
dc.title | Comparison of Critical Drug-Drug Interactions from the Department of Veteran Affairs to the Standard Reference Compendia | en_US |
dc.type | text | en |
dc.type | Electronic Report | en |
dc.contributor.department | College of Pharmacy, The University of Arizona | en |
dc.description.collectioninformation | This item is part of the Pharmacy Student Research Projects collection, made available by the College of Pharmacy and the University Libraries at the University of Arizona. For more information about items in this collection, please contact Jennifer Martin, Librarian and Clinical Instructor, Pharmacy Practice and Science, jenmartin@email.arizona.edu. | en |
html.description.abstract | Objectives: The purpose of this study is to compare the critical drug-drug interaction alerting software at the Department of Veteran Affairs with Hansten and Horn's drug analysis and management (DIAM) and Micromedex®. Methods: The Department of Veterans Affairs supplied a list of drug-drug interacting (DDI) pairs. Each pair was labled as significant or critical. The critical interactions were included in the study (n=1018). Two researchers inputed the interactions into Micromedex and looked up the interactions in Hansten and Horn's drug interactions analysis and management (DIAM). A Kappa statistic was used to calculate the agreement between the 2 researchers. Results: The researchers differed in the number of interactions found to be "contraindicated" or "major" in Micromedex and "avoid" or "usually aviod" in DIAM (researcher 1= 683, 330, respectively; researcher 2= 672,176, respectively) with a Kappa of 0.9 for Micromedex and 0.57 for DIAM. Conclusions: Our study suggests that there is a difference between the VA drug interaction alerting system, Micromedex ® and DIAM in regards to the way they list interactions and their method of rating the level of severity of the interactions. Also, there may be a difference in the way each researcher interprets the information. |