Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29198061›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2018

Development and pilot testing of PHARAO-a decision support system for pharmacological risk assessment in the elderly.

Ylva Böttiger, Kari Laine, Tuomas Korhonen, Janne Lähdesmäki, Tero Shemeikka, Margaretha Julander, Maria Edlert, Marine L Andersson

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Medicines postpartum in Sweden and coverage in Janusmed Breastfeeding.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Ylva BöttigerDivision of Drug Research, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden. ylva.bottiger@liu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3364-5767
Kari LaineMedbase Ltd., Turku, Finland.
Tuomas KorhonenMedbase Ltd., Turku, Finland.
Janne LähdesmäkiMedbase Ltd., Turku, Finland.
Tero ShemeikkaDepartment of E-health and Strategic IT, Stockholm County Council, Stockholm, Sweden.
Margaretha JulanderDepartment of E-health and Strategic IT, Stockholm County Council, Stockholm, Sweden.
Maria EdlertDepartment of E-health and Strategic IT, Stockholm County Council, Stockholm, Sweden.
Marine L AnderssonDivision of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, 141 86, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aims of this study are to describe the development of PHARAO (Pharmacological Risk Assessment Online), a decision support system providing a risk profile for adverse events, associated with combined effects of multiple medicines, and to present data from a pilot study, testing the use, functionality, and acceptance of the PHARAO system in a clinical setting.

methodsAbout 1400 substances were scored in relation to their risk to cause any of nine common and/or serious adverse effects. Algorithms for each adverse effect score were developed to create individual risk profiles from the patient's list of medication. The system was tested and integrated to the electronic medical record, during a 4-month period in two geriatric wards and three primary healthcare centers, and a questionnaire was answered by the users before and after the test period.

resultsA total of 732 substances were tagged with one or more of the nine risks, most commonly with the risk of sedation or seizures. During the pilot, the system was used 933 times in 871 patients. The most common signals generated by PHARAO in these patients were related to the risks of constipation, sedation, and bleeding. A majority of responders considered PHARAO easy to use and that it gives useful support in performing medication reviews.

conclusionsThe PHARAO decision support system, designed as a complement to a database on drug-drug interactions used nationally, worked as intended and was appreciated by the users during a 4-month test period. Integration aspects need to be improved to minimize unnecessary signaling.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalDrug InteractionsPolypharmacyAgedAged, 80 and overAttitude of Health PersonnelChronic DiseaseComorbidityDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsDrug Utilization ReviewFinlandGeriatric AssessmentGeriatricsHumansInternetPilot ProjectsAdverse drug reactionClinical decision support systemDrug interactionsElderlyPolypharmacy

Identifiers

PMID29198061
PMCPMC5808089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.