ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2019
Development of a trigger tool for the detection of adverse drug events in Chinese geriatric inpatients using the Delphi method.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive values of trigger tools for identifying adverse events in hospitalized patients using a medical record review: a systematic review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025Pooled it
- Development of central venous access device-associated skin impairment assessment instrument.Nursing open · 2022Pooled it
- The impact of hospital pharmacists' psychological contracts on medication adherence management: The mediating role of job burnout.PloS one · 2026Article
- Psychometrics of the Attitude Scale towards the use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Nursing.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Application and evaluation of the global trigger tool approach to adverse drug event monitoring in the high-risk elderly inpatients with multiple chronic diseases.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Article
- Evaluation of Global trigger tool as a medication safety tool for adverse drug event detection-a cross-sectional study in a tertiary hospital.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2023Article
- The development and validation of a patient-reported outcome measure to assess financial hardship among older cancer survivors in China: hardship and recovery with distress survey.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Predicting adverse drug events in older inpatients: a machine learning study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2022Article
- Rating Hospital Performance in China: Review of Publicly Available Measures and Development of a Ranking System.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Observational
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background The global trigger tool is a method of retrospective medical record review that identifies possible harm in hospitalized patients using "triggers". Elderly patients with multiple co-morbid illnesses are especially vulnerable to adverse drug events (ADEs) that have high prevalence rates. Objective The purpose of this study was to develop an appropriate trigger tool to detect ADEs in Chinese geriatric inpatients by combining a literature review with the Delphi method. Setting Chinese geriatric inpatients. Methods Two steps were used to develop the trigger tool. First, we conducted a comprehensive literature review for existing ADE triggers (adult or elderly) to form the initial triggers for the Delphi process. Second, a group of clinical experts, including physicians, clinical pharmacists and nurses, was established to score candidate triggers for utility according to the usefulness and feasibility of implementing triggers in clinical practice. Main outcome measures The frequency of the full mark, arithmetic mean and coefficient of variation of each trigger. Results An initial set of 51 triggers was selected by literature review for evaluation. The group of experts was composed of 18 clinical experts: 13 physicians, 4 clinical pharmacists, and 1 nurse. Based on the two-phase Delphi process, 42 triggers in five categories (laboratory index, plasma concentration, antidotes, clinical symptoms and intervention) were retained. Conclusion The 42-trigger tool was developed to identify ADEs in Chinese geriatric inpatients. A pilot study that tests the list of triggers to identify ADEs in Chinese geriatric inpatients is the next step for establishing a specific trigger tool for Chinese geriatric inpatients.
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.