ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences2025
Assessing the utility and challenges for implementation of a risk prediction system: a usability study with hospital pharmacists.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe clinical implementation of prediction models can face important barriers, particularly regarding user-friendliness and interpretability for healthcare professionals. We recently developed and externally validated a risk prediction model for denosumab-induced hypocalcemia. The present study aimed to evaluate the model's utility and identify challenges for its clinical implementation through pilot testing conducted by hospital pharmacists.
methodsA paper-format prediction model was distributed to pharmacists at Kameda General Hospital, Miyagi Cancer Center, and Gunma Prefectural Cancer Center. Participants trialed the model outside their routine workflow by applying it to data from patients scheduled to receive their first dose of denosumab. A subsequent questionnaire survey, available in paper and electronic formats, was conducted to gather feedback on the model's utility and limitations.
resultsA total of 49 responses were obtained, predominantly from pharmacists in their 20 s and 30 s with diverse professional responsibilities. The model was positively evaluated in terms of its clear target population, predicted outcome (47/49, 95.9%), and simple, straightforward nature (47/49, 95.9%). However, some participants provided neutral feedback on its ease of use (10/49, 20.4%). While its potential as an auxiliary tool for risk prediction was acknowledged, there were also some neutral views on its practical utility. One concern was the inconvenience of implementing a paper-format tool in clinical environments that primarily operate on electronic health records.
conclusionsThe paper-format prediction model was positively evaluated by frontline pharmacists, especially for its clear and straightforward nature. As anticipated, however, limitations such as manual data input and paper-based format were identified by some participants. Integration into electronic health records and broader clinical validation will be necessary to advance the clinical application of this prediction model and ensure real-world applicability.
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.