SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Risk prediction models for adverse drug reactions and adverse drug events in older adults-a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Epidemiology and characteristics of repeat adverse drug reactions and associated clinical outcomes in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European geriatric medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Hospital admissions due to adverse drug reactions and adverse drug events in older adults: a systematic review.Age and ageing · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- Identifying predictors of medication-related harm in older populations: a latent class analysis approach.Age and ageing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdverse drug reactions (ADRs) are common and result in significant morbidity, mortality, and associated hospital costs. Models predicting ADRs in older adults were previously found to lack reliability and validity. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to provide an updated, comprehensive quality assessment and analysis of ADR-risk prediction tools in older adults.
methodsStandard databases and citations were searched (2012 to 2023) and studies which developed and/or validated an ADR prediction model for use in older adults were included. Four studies from a previous systematic review were also included. The TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) checklist was used to evaluate each study. Random effects models were used to derive a pooled discrimination estimate (area-under-the-receiver-operation curve; AUROC) for model development and validation studies.
resultsEight studies, describing 6 ADR-risk prediction models met the inclusion criteria). In the meta-analysis, the pooled AUROC was 0.75 (95% CI 0.57, 0.87; I-squared = 96.88%) for model development studies and 0.73 (95% CI 0.52, 0.87; Isquared = 90.19%) for externally validated studies. Studies had poor adherence (range 34-50%; median 46.5%; IQR 12%) to TRIPOD guidelines.
conclusionThe studies identified through this systematic review exhibit poor adherence to TRIPOD guidelines which may question the investigational rigor and the usability of the models. This underscores the urgent need to develop a validated, robust, and reliable tool worthy of implementation and testing in a real-world setting to gauge its impact and usability effectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39557638What 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.