ArticleJournal of oncology practice2018
Comparison of Nine Tools for Screening Drug-Drug Interactions of Oral Oncolytics.
Article in Journal of oncology practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Treatment Algorithm in Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Updated Canadian Expert Consensus.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of package insert-based screening for potential drug-drug interactions in ICU patients receiving injectable medications: a retrospective diagnostic accuracy study using Lexi-Interact as the comparator in Japan.Journal of intensive care · 2026Article
- Comparative performance of large language models and Drugs.com versus Lexicomp for antiseizure medication drug-drug interactions: A cross-sectional study with iterative prompting analysis.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- Pharmacokinetic Drug-Drug Interaction Potential of Oral Anticancer Drugs.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Exploring Potential Drug-Drug Interactions: A Cross-Sectional Study of 1 Million e-Prescriptions Across Medical Specialties in Shiraz, Iran (2021-2024).Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Clinical, laboratory, and medication-related factors associated with in-hospital mortality among oncology patients at a tertiary hospital in Saudi Arabia.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Drug interactions in a sample of inpatients diagnosed with cannabis use disorder.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2025Article
- Towards streamlined product information: reporting of transporter-mediated drug interactions.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Clinical Significance and Patterns of Potential Drug-Drug Interactions in Cardiovascular Patients: Focus on Low-Dose Aspirin and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Potentially Inappropriate Medication: A Pilot Study in Institutionalized Older Adults.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Pharmacological treatments and medication-related problems in nursing homes in Catalonia: a multidisciplinary approach.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Update and Application of a Deep Learning Model for the Prediction of Interactions between Drugs Used by Patients with Multiple Sclerosis.Pharmaceutics · 2023Article
- Article
- Tertiary drug information sources for treatment and prevention of COVID-19.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2023Article
- Prescribed Versus Taken Polypharmacy and Drug-Drug Interactions in Older Cardiovascular Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Observational Cross-Sectional Analytical Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Managing Drug Interactions With Oral Anticancer Treatments.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2023Article
- Article
- Assessment of the scope, completeness, and consistency of various drug information resources related to COVID-19 medications in pregnancy and lactation.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Potential drug-drug interactions in outpatients with depression of a psychiatry department.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023Article
- Potential interactions between antineoplastic agents and medicines used to treat Covid-19.Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePatients with cancer are an especially vulnerable population to potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs). This makes it important to adequately screen them for DDIs. The objective of this study was to compare the abilities of nine DDI screening tools to detect clinically relevant interactions with oral oncolytics.
methodsSubscription-based tools (ie, PEPID, Micromedex, Lexicomp, Facts & Comparisons) and free tools (ie, Epocrates Free, Medscape, Drugs.com, RxList, WebMD) were compared for their abilities to detect clinically relevant DDIs for 145 drug pairs including an oral oncology agent. Clinical relevance was determined by a pharmacist using Stockley's Drug Interactions. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each tool, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV), and then compared grouped by free or subscription-based tools for the secondary analysis and analyzed via generalized estimating equations.
resultsFor individual metrics, PPV had overall higher values (0.88 to 0.97) relative to the low values included for sensitivity (0.65 to 0.96), specificity (0.53 to 0.93) and NPV (0.38 to 0.83). The top-performing subscription and free tools, Lexicomp and Drugs.com, had no statistically significant differences in performance. Overall, subscription tools had a significantly higher sensitivity (0.85 ± 0.017 v 0.78 ± 0.017; P = .0082) and NPV (0.57 ± 0.039 v 0.48 ± 0.032; P = .031) than free tools. No differences were observed between the specificity and PPV.
conclusionDue to the low performance of some tools for sensitivity, specificity, and NPV, individual performance should be examined and prioritized on the basis of the intended use when selecting a DDI tool. If a strong-performing subscription-based tool is unavailable, a strong-performing free option, like Drugs.com, is available.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.