Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40604894›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025

Towards a prescribing monitoring system for medication safety evaluation within electronic health records: a scoping review.

Camilo Scherkl, Theresa Dierkes, Michael Metzner, David Czock, Hanna M Seidling, Walter E Haefeli, Andreas D Meid

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Camilo ScherklInternal Medicine IX, Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Medical Faculty/Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Theresa DierkesInternal Medicine IX, Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Medical Faculty/Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Michael MetznerInternal Medicine IX, Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Medical Faculty/Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
David CzockInternal Medicine IX, Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Medical Faculty/Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Hanna M SeidlingInternal Medicine IX, Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Medical Faculty/Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Walter E HaefeliInternal Medicine IX, Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Medical Faculty/Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Andreas D MeidInternal Medicine IX, Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Medical Faculty/Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. Andreas.Meid@med.uni-heidelberg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical care can fail for various reasons: diseases can remain undetected and their severity misjudged, therapies can be incorrectly dosed or ineffective, and therapies can trigger new conditions or adverse drug reactions (ADR). To manage the complexity of changing patient circumstances, data-driven techniques play an increasingly important role in monitoring patient safety and treatment success. Therefore, clinical prediction models need to consider longitudinal factors ("Prescribing Monitoring") to ensure clinically meaningful results and avoid misclassification in the dynamic health situation of the individual patient.

methodsWe have conducted a scoping review (OSF registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/P93TZ ) on prediction models for ADR to collect potential use cases for Prescribing Monitoring. This review identified 2435 relevant studies in English that were published in MEDLINE or EMBASE. Two reviewers screened the records for inclusion, with a third reviewer making the final decision in the event of discrepancies. In order to derive recommendations on the way towards a Prescribing Monitoring system, the following elements were extracted and interpreted: the prediction models used, selection of candidate predictors, use of longitudinal factors, and model performance.

resultsA total of 56 studies were included after the screening process. We identified the main areas of current research in ADR prediction, all covering clinically important outcomes. We identified Prescribing Monitoring use cases based on their potential to (i) make individual predictions considering specific patient characteristics, (ii) make longitudinal predictions in a near time frame, and (iii) make dynamic predictions by updating predictions with previous risk predictions and newly available data. As a further aside, we use hyperkalaemia as an example to discuss the framework for developing Prescribing Monitoring in an electronic health record (EHR).

conclusionThis scoping review provides an overview of the use of time-varying effects and longitudinal variables in current prediction model research. For application to clinical cases, prediction models should be developed, validated and implemented on this basis, so that time-dependent information can enable continuous monitoring of individual patients.

Indexed as

Drug MonitoringDrug PrescriptionsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsElectronic Health RecordsPatient SafetyHumansAdverse drug events (ADE)Adverse drug reactions (ADR)Clinical decision support systemElectronic health records (EHR)Medication safetyPrediction modelReal-world evidence (RWE)

Identifiers

PMID40604894
PMCPMC12224581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.