Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32641027›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2020

Development of an algorithm to detect and reduce complexity of drug treatment and its technical realisation.

Viktoria S Wurmbach, Steffen J Schmidt, Anette Lampert, Eduard Frick, Michael Metzner, Simone Bernard, Petra A Thürmann, Stefan Wilm, Achim Mortsiefer, Attila Altiner and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. [Frailty and pharmacotherapy].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

16 authors.

Viktoria S WurmbachDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Steffen J SchmidtChair of Clinical Pharmacology, Faculty of Health, University Witten/Herdecke, Alfred-Herrhausen-Straße 50, 58448, Witten, Germany.
Anette LampertDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Eduard FrickDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Michael MetznerDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Simone BernardChair of Clinical Pharmacology, Faculty of Health, University Witten/Herdecke, Alfred-Herrhausen-Straße 50, 58448, Witten, Germany.
Petra A ThürmannChair of Clinical Pharmacology, Faculty of Health, University Witten/Herdecke, Alfred-Herrhausen-Straße 50, 58448, Witten, Germany.
Stefan WilmInstitute of General Practice, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Moorenstraße 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Achim MortsieferInstitute of General Practice, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Moorenstraße 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Attila AltinerInstitute of General Practice, Rostock University Medical Center, Doberaner Str. 142, 18057, Rostock, Germany.
Lisa SparenbergInstitute of General Practice, Rostock University Medical Center, Doberaner Str. 142, 18057, Rostock, Germany.
Joachim SzecsenyiDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Frank Peters-KlimmDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Petra Kaufmann-KolleAQUA-Institute for Applied Quality Improvement and Research in Health Care, Maschmühlenweg 8-10, 37073, Göttingen, Germany.
Walter E HaefeliDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Hanna M SeidlingDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. hanna.seidling@med.uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID 0000-0002-1215-634X

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft funding programme Open Access Publishing by the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts and by Ruprecht-Karls-Universität HeidelbergInnovation Funds of The Federal Joint Committee, Germany 01VSF16019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increasing complexity of current drug therapies jeopardizes patient adherence. While individual needs to simplify a medication regimen vary from patient to patient, a straightforward approach to integrate the patients' perspective into decision making for complexity reduction is still lacking. We therefore aimed to develop an electronic, algorithm-based tool that analyses complexity of drug treatment and supports the assessment and consideration of patient preferences and needs regarding the reduction of complexity of drug treatment.

methodsComplexity factors were selected based on literature and expert rating and specified for integration in the automated assessment. Subsequently, distinct key questions were phrased and allocated to each complexity factor to guide conversation with the patient and personalize the results of the automated assessment. Furthermore, each complexity factor was complemented with a potential optimisation measure to facilitate drug treatment (e.g. a patient leaflet). Complexity factors, key questions, and optimisation strategies were technically realized as tablet computer-based application, tested, and adapted iteratively until no further technical or content-related errors occurred.

resultsIn total, 61 complexity factors referring to the dosage form, the dosage scheme, additional instructions, the patient, the product, and the process were considered relevant for inclusion in the tool; 38 of them allowed for automated detection. In total, 52 complexity factors were complemented with at least one key question for preference assessment and at least one optimisation measure. These measures included 29 recommendations for action for the health care provider (e.g. to suggest a dosage aid), 27 training videos, 44 patient leaflets, and 5 algorithms to select and suggest alternative drugs.

conclusionsBoth the set-up of an algorithm and its technical realisation as computer-based app was successful. The electronic tool covers a wide range of different factors that potentially increase the complexity of drug treatment. For the majority of factors, simple key questions could be phrased to include the patients' perspective, and, even more important, for each complexity factor, specific measures to mitigate or reduce complexity could be defined.

Indexed as

Pharmaceutical PreparationsPolypharmacyAlgorithmsFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansPatient PreferencePharmaceutical PreparationsClinical decision support systemsMedication regimen complexityPolypharmacySelf-administrationShared decision making

Identifiers

PMID32641027
PMCPMC7346621

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.