ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2025
Development and validation of a clinical score to identify hospitalised patients at high risk of drug-related problems.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Drug-related problems (DRPs) are a major health concern, with half being preventable and potentially resolvable through the application of pharmaceutical care (PC). However, performing PC to all hospitalised patients is unfeasible due to staff shortages coupled with an increasing number of patients. Hence, a risk score for identifying patients at high risk of DRPs is needed. This study aimed to develop and validate a DRP risk score for hospitalised patients. Method: A prospective cohort study was conducted in a tertiary hospital in Northern Thailand. Adult patients (≥ 18 years) admitted to medical wards were included. DRPs were identified by clinical pharmacists specialising in internal medicine. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to construct a risk score. The score was validated using bootstrapping, and three risk groups were created based on both probability and severity. Score performance was assessed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration plot, sensitivity, and specificity. Results: Among 1350 eligible admissions, 155 (11.48%) experienced at least one clinically preventable DRP. The DRP risk score included 6 predictors, namely age ≥ 65 years, chronic cardiac disease, number of drugs used prior to admission, parenteral administration (excluding parenteral nutrition), drugs with special instructions, and drugs with a high potential for drug-drug interactions. The AUROC was 0.709 (95% CI 0.672, 0.751), with good calibration (calibration slope of 0.928, intercept 0.004). Patients with a score < 4 were classified as low risk, while score ≥ 8 indicated high risk. A score of 4 yielded a sensitivity of 93.55% and a specificity of 34.48%, whereas a score of 8 demonstrated a sensitivity of 43.87% and a specificity of 83.01%. Conclusions: The DRP risk score has the potential to identify patients at risk of DRPs. External validation is needed to enhance its generalisability. Integration into automated systems may support timely pharmacist interventions.
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.