Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31409338›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2019

The effect of ICU-tailored drug-drug interaction alerts on medication prescribing and monitoring: protocol for a cluster randomized stepped-wedge trial.

T Bakker, J E Klopotowska, S Eslami, D W de Lange, R van Marum, H van der Sijs, E de Jonge, D A Dongelmans, N F de Keizer, A Abu-Hanna

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Reducing medication errors for adults in hospital settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

10 authors.

T BakkerDepartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC (location AMC), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. t.bakker@amc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-7894-6926
J E KlopotowskaDepartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC (location AMC), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
S EslamiDepartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC (location AMC), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
D W de LangeDepartment of Intensive Care and Dutch Poison Information Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, University Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
R van MarumDepartment of Geriatrics, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
H van der SijsDepartment of Hospital Pharmacy, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
E de JongeDepartment of Intensive Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
D A DongelmansDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Amsterdam UMC (location AMC), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
N F de KeizerDepartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC (location AMC), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
A Abu-HannaDepartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC (location AMC), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDrug-drug interactions (DDIs) can cause patient harm. Between 46 and 90% of patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) are exposed to potential DDIs (pDDIs). This rate is twice as high as patients on general wards. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) have shown their potential to prevent pDDIs. However, the literature shows that there is considerable room for improvement of CDSSs, in particular by increasing the clinical relevance of the pDDI alerts they generate and thereby reducing alert fatigue. However, consensus on which pDDIs are clinically relevant in the ICU setting is lacking. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of alerts based on only clinically relevant interactions for the ICU setting on the prevention of pDDIs among Dutch ICUs.

methodsTo define the clinically relevant pDDIs, we will follow a rigorous two-step Delphi procedure in which a national expert panel will assess which pDDIs are perceived clinically relevant for the Dutch ICU setting. The intervention is the CDSS that generates alerts based on the clinically relevant pDDIs. The intervention will be evaluated in a stepped-wedge trial. A total of 12 Dutch adult ICUs using the same patient data management system, in which the CDSS will operate, were invited to participate in the trial. Of the 12 ICUs, 9 agreed to participate and will be enrolled in the trial. Our primary outcome measure is the incidence of clinically relevant pDDIs per 1000 medication administrations. DISCUSSION: This study will identify pDDIs relevant for the ICU setting. It will also enhance our understanding of the effectiveness of alerts confined to clinically relevant pDDIs. Both of these contributions can facilitate the successful implementation of CDSSs in the ICU and in other domains as well.

trial registrationNederlands Trial register Identifier: NL6762 . Registered November 26, 2018.

Indexed as

Drug InteractionsIntensive Care UnitsCluster AnalysisDecision Support Systems, ClinicalHospitalizationHumansIncidenceRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignAlert fatigueComputerized decision support systemsDrug-drug interactionsIntensive careStepped-wedge trial

Identifiers

PMID31409338
PMCPMC6692933

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.