ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2022
Clinical validation of clinical decision support systems for medication review: A scoping review.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Clinical Decision Support Systems Using Home Blood Pressure Readings to Manage Patients With Hypertension: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the acceptability of ESIDA app, a smartphone-based clinical decision support application to improve infectious disease outbreak detection in Tanzania: clinician perspectives.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Development and Implementation of a Clinical Decision Support System to Enhance Efficiency and Accuracy in Medication Prescription Review in a Tertiary Care Hospital: A Retrospective Hospital CDSS Register Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- Impact of pharmacist-evaluated clinical decision support system alerts on potentially missing or inappropriately prescribed proton pump inhibitors at hospital discharge: a retrospective cross-sectional study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
- Identifying the risk of exercises, recommended by an artificial intelligence for patients with musculoskeletal disorders.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- [INTERPOLAR-prospective, interventional studies as part of the Medical Informatics Initiative to improve medication therapy safety in healthcare].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Triple Whammy Prescriptions After the Implementation of a Drug Safety Algorithm.Drugs - real world outcomes · 2024Article
- 21st century (clinical) decision support in nursing and allied healthcare. Developing a learning health system: a reasoned design of a theoretical framework.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Review
- Clinical decision support systems to improve drug prescription and therapy optimisation in clinical practice: a scoping review.BMJ health & care informatics · 2023Article
- Potential Drug-Related Problems in Pediatric Patients-Describing the Use of a Clinical Decision Support System at Pharmacies in Sweden.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Polypharmacy and precision medicine.Cambridge prisms. Precision medicine · 2023Review
- Implementing evidence-based anticoagulant prescribing: User-centered design findings and recommendations.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2022Article
- Clinical validation of clinical decision support systems for medication review: A scoping review.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this scoping review is to summarize approaches and outcomes of clinical validation studies of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) to support (part of) a medication review. A literature search was conducted in Embase and Medline. In total, 30 articles validating a CDSS were ultimately included. Most of the studies focused on detection of adverse drug events, potentially inappropriate medications and drug-related problems. We categorized the included articles in three groups: studies subjectively reviewing the clinical relevance of CDSS's output (21/30 studies) resulting in a positive predictive value (PPV) for clinical relevance of 4-80%; studies determining the relationship between alerts and actual events (10/30 studies) resulting in a PPV for actual events of 5-80%; and studies comparing output of CDSSs to chart/medication reviews in the whole study population (10/30 studies) resulting in a sensitivity of 28-85% and specificity of 42-75%. We found heterogeneity in the methods used and in the outcome measures. The validation studies did not report the use of a published CDSS validation strategy. To improve the effectiveness and uptake of CDSSs supporting a medication review, future research would benefit from a more systematic and comprehensive validation strategy.
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.