SynthesisJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025
Effect of electronic drug-drug interaction alerts on patient and clinician outcomes: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 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.
- Navigating uncertainty matters: Evaluating large language models for drug-drug interaction identification.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Article
- Evaluating a large language model (ChatGPT-5) for detecting potential drug-drug interactions in intensive care: a cross-sectional comparative study with a clinical decision support system.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
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
objectivesDrug interaction checking software is ubiquitous in clinical decision support systems (CDSS-DI) but patient relevance and accuracy are variable and the impact on patient outcomes is unproven. We compared the effectiveness of CDSS-DI with similar care without CDSS-DI. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe searched multiple bibliographic databases from 1990 to end-2024 for randomized trials (RCTs) or prospective cohort studies evaluating CDSS-DI at prescription, dispensing, or administration compared to a control group, and assessing clinical, process and burden outcomes. We used Cochrane Risk of Bias v2.0 and ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias and random effects modeling using meta 6.0 package in R for meta-analysis.
resultsEight studies were included-7 RCTs (2 parallel and 5 cluster) and 1 prospective cohort study (total N = 43 413 patients). Mortality rates were similar between intervention (0.14%) and control (0.07%) groups (OR: 1.94 [95% CI: 0.88-4.29], P = .078). One study reported a minor, possibly irrelevant, 3-hour decrease in length of stay (P = .0021) in the intervention group. CDSS-DI alerts modestly influenced prescribing behavior (OR: 2.08 [95% CI: 1.01-4.27], P = .05), but did not significantly reduce the incidence of targeted adverse drug interactions (OR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.56-1.34], P = .37). DISCUSSION: Surprisingly little high-quality research addresses the effect of CDSS-DI on patient or clinician outcomes. Current evidence continues to suggest no major benefit for patient-important outcomes. Given the potential for harms and important time burdens, CDSS-DI alerting needs improvement.
conclusionCDSS-DI alerts show no significant improvement in patient-important outcomes. Optimizing alert accuracy, clinical relevance, and patient-specific integration is essential to enhance their value in practice.
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.