Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38050067›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2024

Using machine learning or deep learning models in a hospital setting to detect inappropriate prescriptions: a systematic review.

Erin Johns, Ahmad Alkanj, Morgane Beck, Laurent Dal Mas, Benedicte Gourieux, Erik-André Sauleau, Bruno Michel

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Erin JohnsDirection de la Qualité, de la Performance et de l'Innovation, Agence Régionale de Santé Grand Est Site de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, Grand Est, France erin.johns@etu.unistra.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2218-1466
Ahmad AlkanjLaboratoire de Pharmacologie et de Toxicologie Neurocardiovasculaire, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, Grand Est, France.
Morgane BeckDirection de la Qualité, de la Performance et de l'Innovation, Agence Régionale de Santé Grand Est Site de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, Grand Est, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6877-7022
Laurent Dal MasDirection de la Qualité, de la Performance et de l'Innovation, Agence Régionale de Santé Grand Est Site de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, Grand Est, France.
Benedicte GourieuxLaboratoire de Pharmacologie et de Toxicologie Neurocardiovasculaire, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, Grand Est, France.
Erik-André SauleauIMAGeS, Laboratoire des Sciences de l'Ingénieur de l'Informatique et de l'Imagerie, Illkirch, Grand Est, France.
Bruno MichelLaboratoire de Pharmacologie et de Toxicologie Neurocardiovasculaire, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, Grand Est, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5961-1584

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) is catching the interest of hospital pharmacists. A massive collection of health data is now available to train AI models and hold the promise of disrupting codes and practices. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the state of the art of machine learning or deep learning models that detect inappropriate hospital medication orders.

methodsA systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception to May 2023. Studies were included if they reported and described an AI model intended for use by clinical pharmacists in hospitals. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST).

results13 articles were selected after review: 12 studies were judged to have high risk of bias; 11 studies were published between 2020 and 2023; 8 were conducted in North America and Asia; 6 analysed orders and detected inappropriate prescriptions according to patient profiles and medication orders; and 7 detected specific inappropriate prescriptions, such as detecting antibiotic resistance, dosage abnormality in prescriptions, high alert drugs errors from prescriptions or predicting the risk of adverse drug events. Various AI models were used, mainly supervised learning techniques. The training datasets used were very heterogeneous; the length of study varied from 2 weeks to 7 years and the number of prescription orders analysed went from 31 to 5 804 192.

conclusionsThis systematic review points out that, to date, few original research studies report AI tools based on machine or deep learning in the field of hospital clinical pharmacy. However, these original articles, while preliminary, highlighted the potential value of integrating AI into clinical hospital pharmacy practice.

Indexed as

Deep LearningInappropriate PrescribingMachine LearningPharmacy Service, HospitalHumansPharmacistsCLINICAL PHARMACYHospital Distribution SystemsMedical InformaticsMEDICATION SYSTEMS, HOSPITALPHARMACY SERVICE, HOSPITAL

Identifiers

PMID38050067
PMCPMC11265547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.