Evaluating complementary medicines resources: Separating the wheat from the chaff

Walters, J., McGuire, T.M., Williamson, M., Pache, D. and Van Driel, M. (2010). Evaluating complementary medicines resources: Separating the wheat from the chaff. In: Poster Abstracts: National Medicines Symposium 2010. National Medicines Symposium 2010, Melbourne, Australia, (). 24-28 May 2010.

Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
UQ230730_evidence.pdf ERA evidence – not publicly available application/pdf 29.10KB 2
Author Walters, J.
McGuire, T.M.
Williamson, M.
Pache, D.
Van Driel, M.
Title of paper Evaluating complementary medicines resources: Separating the wheat from the chaff
Conference name National Medicines Symposium 2010
Conference location Melbourne, Australia
Conference dates 24-28 May 2010
Proceedings title Poster Abstracts: National Medicines Symposium 2010
Publication Year 2010
Sub-type Poster
Language eng
Formatted Abstract/Summary
To develop an approach to evaluate the quality of complementary medicines (CMs) information resources to aid decision support and to identify high quality resources for use in Australia.

CMs information resources were identified from reputable sources and short-listed, using criteria for accessibility and currency, content and coverage, transparency (authority), and content quality (accuracy). Resources that had limited content or failed the above criteria were excluded. Short-listed resources were comprehensively assessed on three major constructs of quality (technical quality, content quality and clinical utility), using criteria and measures derived from the literature and consensus of a multidisciplinary validation panel. Each resource was scored across these constructs (triangulation), with a total score calculated, standardised to a percentage and ranked. Resources that scored above the upper confidence intervals (95%) for the mean of the Total Score and for either all three constructs of quality or two of these three constructs were classified as Tier 1 and 2 resources respectively.

There were six Tier 1 and three Tier 2 resources identified. These were (in rank order):
•Natural Standard Professional Database
•Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database (Health Professional ed)
•Natural Standard Professional monographs (a subset of above)
•Medicines Complete (containing both Herbal Medicines and Dietary Supplements)
•Natural Standard Clinical Bottom Line monographs (a subset of above)
•Drugs, Supplements & Herbal Information (Medline Plus)
•Barnes et al. Herbal Medicines (part of Medicines Complete)
•Natural and Alternative Treatments (EBSCO)
•Braun & Cohen, Herbs and natural supplements: an evidence-based guide.

While there is no single ideal CMs information resource, the identified Tier 1 and, to a lesser degree, Tier 2 resources have the technical quality, content quality and clinical utility to improve Australian health professionals' and consumers' Quality Use of Complementary Medicines.
Q-Index Code EX
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ
Additional Notes Published under Poster Abstracts: National Medicines Symposium 2010

Document type: Conference Paper
Collection: School of Pharmacy Publications
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 01 Mar 2011, 13:32:24 EST by Dr Treasure Mcguire on behalf of School of Pharmacy