ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2022
Contextualized Drug-Drug Interaction Management Improves Clinical Utility Compared With Basic Drug-Drug Interaction Management in Hospitalized Patients.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving Radiology Report Error Detection Using a Multipass Large Language Model: Framework Development and Validation.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Standardizing and Comparing Management Recommendations for Potential Drug-Drug Interactions Across Different Interaction Checkers.Drug safety · 2026Article
- Efficiency of computerized clinical decision support systems involving anticoagulants: A flashmob study in Dutch hospital pharmacies.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Preliminary guidelines for the detection and management of drug-related problems in cancer patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a practical resource for oncology pharmacists.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Evaluation of an electronic health record Drug Interaction Customization Editor (DICE).American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists · 2024Article
- The Impact of Customized Screening Intervals on the Burden of Drug-Drug Interaction Alerts: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis.Journal of medical systems · 2024Article
- The use of artificial intelligence to optimize medication alerts generated by clinical decision support systems: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Proposing a framework to quantify the potential impact of pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions caused by a new drug candidate by using real world data about the target patient population.Clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Potentially clinically significant drug-drug interactions in older patients admitted to the hospital: A cross-sectional study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Intelligent technology-driven diabetes prevention and control: From informatization management to artificial intelligence.Science progressReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) frequently trigger adverse drug events or reduced efficacy. Most DDI alerts, however, are overridden because of irrelevance for the specific patient. Basic DDI clinical decision support (CDS) systems offer limited possibilities for decreasing the number of irrelevant DDI alerts without missing relevant ones. Computerized decision tree rules were designed to context-dependently suppress irrelevant DDI alerts. A crossover study was performed to compare the clinical utility of contextualized and basic DDI management in hospitalized patients. First, a basic DDI-CDS system was used in clinical practice while contextualized DDI alerts were collected in the background. Next, this process was reversed. All medication orders (MOs) from hospitalized patients with at least one DDI alert were included. The following outcome measures were used to assess clinical utility: positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), number of pharmacy interventions (PIs)/1,000 MOs, and the median time spent on DDI management/1,000 MOs. During the basic DDI management phase 1,919 MOs/day were included, triggering 220 DDI alerts/1,000 MOs; showing 57 basic DDI alerts/1,000 MOs to pharmacy staff; PPV was 2.8% with 1.6 PIs/1,000 MOs costing 37.2 minutes/1,000 MOs. No DDIs were missed by the contextualized CDS system (NPV 100%). During the contextualized DDI management phase 1,853 MOs/day were included, triggering 244 basic DDI alerts/1,000 MOs, showing 9.6 contextualized DDIs/1,000 MOs to pharmacy staff; PPV was 41.4% (P < 0.01), with 4.0 PIs/1,000 MOs (P < 0.01) and 13.7 minutes/1,000 MOs. The clinical utility of contextualized DDI management exceeds that of basic DDI management.
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.