目的 采用多維度定量評估國外5個常用藥物相互作用（DDI）分析軟件的性能，為我國DDI軟件開發(fā)提供參考。方法 對DDI分析軟件的評估涵蓋4個維度，即準(zhǔn)確性、全面性、易用性、可靠性，準(zhǔn)確性采用診斷性Meta分析方法對敏感度、特異度等數(shù)據(jù)進行定量合成，繪制集成受試者工作特征曲線（SROC）圖并計算曲線下面積；全面性、易用性、可靠性通過訪問軟件平臺進行量表評分，每個條目1分制進行評分，全面性總分7分，易用性總分3分，可靠性總分10分；最終將4個性能評分相加得到綜合分?jǐn)?shù)。結(jié)果 通過既往系統(tǒng)綜述文獻選取研究頻率較高的5個DDI分析軟件為研究對象，包括Micromedex DrugReax®、Lexicomp Interactions、Epocrates、Drug Interactions Checker(Drugs.com)、Medscape^®。準(zhǔn)確性方面，Epocrates敏感度合并值最高，為0.71；Micromedex特異度合并值最高，為0.85；Epocrates陽性似然比合并值最高，為6.14；Lexicomp Interactions、Epocrates陰性似然比最低，為0.2；Epocrates曲線下面積最高，為0.933 2。全面性得分排名為：Micromedex（7分）＞Lexicomp Interactions（6分）＞Drugs.com（5分）＞Medscape（3.5分）＞Epocrates（3分）。5個軟件易用性得分均為3分，可靠性得分排名為：Lexicomp Interactions（9分）＝Drugs.com（9分）＞Micromedex（8分）＞Medscape（7分）＞Epocrates（5分）。最終綜合得分排名為Lexicomp Interactions（8.5分） ＞Epocrates（7.75分）＞Micromedex（7.5分）＞Medscape（5.375分）＞Drugs.com（5.25分）。結(jié)論 國外DDI分析軟件識別能力及信息質(zhì)量參差不齊，對于DDI嚴(yán)重程度分類標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、參考文獻及信息來源等重要信息有待完善，一些軟件的易用性及可靠性也有待提升。

Objective To quantitatively evaluate the performance of five commonly used foreign drug-drug interaction (DDI) analysis software from multiple dimensions, to provide a reference for the development of DDI software in China. Methods The DDI analysis software were evaluated from four dimensions: accuracy, comprehensiveness, usability, and reliability. The integrated receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was plotted, and the area under the curve was calculated. Comprehensiveness, usability, and reliability were scored by accessing the software platform. Each item was scored on a one-point scale, resulting in a total score of seven points for comprehensiveness, three points for usability, and 10 points for reliability. Finally, the scores for the four performance evaluations were added to obtain an overall score. Results Based on the previous literature of systematic review, five frequently used DDI analysis software was selected as the subjects of study. These software include Micromedex DrugReax^®, Lexicomp Interactions, Epocrates, Drug Interactions Checker (Drugs.com), and Medscape^®. In terms of accuracy, Epocrates had the highest combined sensitivity value at 0.71, while Micromedex had the highest combined specificity value at 0.85. Epocrates also had the highest combined positive likelihood ratio value at 6.14, and Lexicomp Interactions and Epocrates had the lowest combined negative likelihood ratio values at 0.2. Epocrates had the highest area under the curve value at 0.933 2. In terms of comprehensive, Micromedex (seven points) > Lexicomp Interactions (six points) > Drugs.com (five points) > Medscape^® (3.5 points) > Epocrates (three points). All five software received a usability score of three. In terms of reliability, Lexicomp Interactions (nine points) = Drugs.com (nine points) > Micromedex (eight points) > Medscape (seven points) > Epocrates (five points). The final overall score rankings were as follows: Lexicomp Interactions (8.5 points) > Epocrates (7.75 points) > Micromedex (7.5 points) > Medscape^® (5.375 points) > Drugs.com (5.25 points). Conclusion The identification capability and information quality of foreign DDI analysis software vary. There is room for improvement in important aspects such as DDI severity classification criteria, references and information sources. Furthermore, the usability and reliability of certain software also need to be enhanced.

R969.2

中國藥品監(jiān)督管理研究會研究課題-基于多元證據(jù)體探索中成藥安全性評價方法的研究（2024-Y-Y-006）；臨床研究和成果轉(zhuǎn)化能力提升試點項目-中藥制劑研發(fā)——治療胃輕癱中藥復(fù)方佛香散（DZMG-ZJXY-23002）