ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2022
Development and assessment of PharmaCheck: an electronic screening tool for the prevention of twenty major adverse drug events.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Hybrid Rule-Based and Machine Learning-Based Clinical Decision Support System to Support Prescription Review: Development and External Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
- Antimicrobial stewardship strategies for implementing the 2019 EUCAST "I" definition.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- The impact of the bedside check of medication appropriateness (BED-CMA) at the hematology ward: a mixed-methods study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Evaluation of a score for identifying hospital stays that trigger a pharmacist intervention: integration into a clinical decision support system.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Prehospital point-of-care medication burden as a predictor of poor related outcomes in unselected acute diseases.Internal and emergency medicine · 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
- Evaluating EHR-Integrated Digital Technologies for Medication-Related Outcomes and Health Equity in Hospitalised Adults: A Scoping Review.Journal of medical systems · 2024Article
- Prescription and Dispensation of QT-Prolonging Medications in Individuals Receiving Hemodialysis.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Development and retrospective evaluation of a clinical decision support system for the efficient detection of drug-related problems by clinical pharmacists.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdverse drug events (ADEs) can be prevented by deploying clinical decision support systems (CDSS) that directly assist physicians, via computerized order entry systems, and clinical pharmacists performing medication reviews as part of medical rounds. However, physicians using CDSS are known to be exposed to the alert-fatigue phenomenon. Our study aimed to assess the performance of PharmaCheck-a CDSS to help clinical pharmacists detect high-risk situations with the potential to lead to ADEs-and its impact on clinical pharmacists' activities.
methodsTwenty clinical rules, divided into four risk classes, were set for the daily screening of high-risk situations in the electronic health records of patients admitted to our General Internal Medicine Department. Alerts to clinical pharmacists encouraged them to telephone prescribers and suggest any necessary treatment adjustments. PharmaCheck's performance was assessed using the intervention's positive predictive value (PPV), which characterizes the proportion of interventions for each alert triggered. PharmaCheck's impact was assessed by considering clinical pharmacists as a filter for ruling out futile alerts and by comparing the final clinical PPV with a pharmacist (the proportion of interventions that led to a change in the medical regimen) to the final clinical PPV without a pharmacist.
resultsOver 132 days, 447 alerts were triggered for 383 patients, leading to 90 interventions (overall intervention PPV = 20.1%). By risk class, intervention PPVs made up 26.9% (n = 65/242) of abnormal laboratory value alerts, 3.1% (4/127) of alerts for contraindicated medications or medications to be used with caution, 28.2% (20/71) of drug-drug interaction alerts, and 14.3% (1/7) of inadequate mode of administration alerts. Clinical PPVs reached 71.0% (64/90) when pharmacists filtered alerts and 14% (64/242) if they were not doing it.
conclusionPharmaCheck enabled clinical pharmacists to improve their traditional processes and broaden their coverage by focusing on 20 high-risk situations. Alert management by pharmacists seemed to be a more effective way of preventing risky situations and alert-fatigue than a model addressing alerts to physicians exclusively. Some fine-tuning could enhance PharmaCheck's performance by considering the information quality of triggers, the variability of clinical settings, and the fact that some prescription processes are already highly secured.
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.