↓ Skip to main content

Information needs for making clinical recommendations about potential drug-drug interactions: a synthesis of literature review and interviews

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Information needs for making clinical recommendations about potential drug-drug interactions: a synthesis of literature review and interviews
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12911-017-0419-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katrina M. Romagnoli, Scott D. Nelson, Lisa Hines, Philip Empey, Richard D. Boyce, Harry Hochheiser

Abstract

Drug information compendia and drug-drug interaction information databases are critical resources for clinicians and pharmacists working to avoid adverse events due to exposure to potential drug-drug interactions (PDDIs). Our goal is to develop information models, annotated data, and search tools that will facilitate the interpretation of PDDI information. To better understand the information needs and work practices of specialists who search and synthesize PDDI evidence for drug information resources, we conducted an inquiry that combined a thematic analysis of published literature with unstructured interviews. Starting from an initial set of relevant articles, we developed search terms and conducted a literature search. Two reviewers conducted a thematic analysis of included articles. Unstructured interviews with drug information experts were conducted and similarly coded. Information needs, work processes, and indicators of potential strengths and weaknesses of information systems were identified. Review of 92 papers and 10 interviews identified 56 categories of information needs related to the interpretation of PDDI information including drug and interaction information; study design; evidence including clinical details, quality and content of reports, and consequences; and potential recommendations. We also identified strengths/weaknesses of PDDI information systems. We identified the kinds of information that might be most effective for summarizing PDDIs. The drug information experts we interviewed had differing goals, suggesting a need for detailed information models and flexible presentations. Several information needs not discussed in previous work were identified, including temporal overlaps in drug administration, biological plausibility of interactions, and assessment of the quality and content of reports. Richly structured depictions of PDDI information may help drug information experts more effectively interpret data and develop recommendations. Effective information models and system designs will be needed to maximize the utility of this information.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
China 1 2%
Unknown 55 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 27%
Computer Science 7 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 12 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 December 2022.
All research outputs
#4,461,149
of 24,396,012 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#380
of 2,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,142
of 315,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#9
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,396,012 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,075 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,290 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.