SynthesisBMJ open quality2025
Trigger tools in healthcare settings: insights from an umbrella review.
Synthesis in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Supratherapeutic drug concentration triggers: A novel data-driven approach to assess their value for medication safety surveillance in intensive care.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Operationalizing preventive care: the preventive health logistics ecosystem framework for aging societies.Frontiers in public health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study synthesises the effectiveness and applicability of trigger tools for detecting adverse events (AEs) across various healthcare settings.
designThis study used an umbrella review to consolidate findings from existing systematic reviews, assess the quality of evidence and identify gaps in current knowledge.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted across SCOPUS, Web of Science and PubMed, and included systematic reviews and meta-analyses from 2009 to 2024 focusing on trigger tools used in healthcare settings. Data extraction and quality appraisal followed Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. Narrative synthesis was employed owing to the heterogeneity among studies. Nine systematic reviews were included.
resultsNine systematic reviews were analysed. Results showed substantial variation in trigger tool performance. Detection rates ranged from 0.8% to 66% across healthcare settings and populations. Preventability rates varied widely from 7% to 94.4%. Automated detection methods demonstrated inconsistent results with AE prevalence, ranging from 0.1% to 29.2%. The studies within the reviews exhibited significant variability in the types of trigger tools analysed and the methodologies used, affecting detection outcomes. The quality of the included studies varied, with inconsistent definitions of AEs and differences in study design limiting the generalisability of the findings.
conclusionsTrigger tools vary significantly in effectiveness, influenced by healthcare context and tool design. Automated methods need refinement. Standardised methodologies and context-specific tools are essential to improve patient safety. Future research should focus on these areas to enhance the accuracy and applicability of trigger tools in different healthcare settings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024581456.
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.