SynthesisInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2025
Predictive values of trigger tools for identifying adverse events in hospitalized patients using a medical record review: a systematic review.
Synthesis in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEfforts to identify the prevalence rate of adverse events have been implemented in hospital settings using different methods. The trigger tool method constitutes one option and involves a retrospective review of paper-based, electronic, or hybrid medical records. The aim of the systematic review was to provide a comprehensive description of the predictive value of trigger tools used to identify adverse events in hospitalized patients.
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library was conducted for studies published between 2000 and October 2024. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed, published in English or Spanish, and reported a trigger tool methodology used to identify the prevalence of adverse events. Two independent reviewers extracted and synthesized the data on study characteristics, methodologies, and outcomes. When reported, tool predictive values were pooled by calculating the arithmetic mean across studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for prevalence studies.
resultsIn total, 100 studies from 37 countries were included, 21 high-, 7 upper-middle, 7 lower-middle, and 2 low-income countries. Thirty-four studies reported a predictive value that involved individual triggers (n = 20) and the original tool (n = 14). The Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool was the most frequent trigger tool used to identify adverse events in hospitalized patients, with an average positive predictive value of 54.5%, negative predictive value of 80.9%, sensitivity of 86.6%, and specificity of 68.2%. An average positive predictive value of 43.9%, negative predictive value of 37.8%, sensitivity of 84.5%, and specificity of 11.5% was reported for the Harvard Medical Practice Study.
conclusionBased on the available evidence, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool demonstrates relatively strong predictive values in identifying adverse events in hospitalized patients, with its flexibility and feasibility further supporting its selection as a suitable tool.
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.