ArticleTherapeutic advances in drug safety2025
Data mining results for reduction of adverse drug-drug interaction events in older adults are clinically applicable.
Article in Therapeutic advances in drug safety, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Patterns of deprescribing after an emergency department visit due to adverse drug events among concomitant users of antithrombotics and other medications.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Polypharmacy increases the risks of drug-drug interactions (DDIs), which increase the risk of adverse drug events (ADEs). Data mining techniques have described high-order (three or four) drug combinations as high risk for ADE and suggested alternative low-risk combinations, but were not able to establish clinical feasibility. Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the clinical feasibility of potentially low-risk drug combinations identified in previous work through a data mining technique as substitutes for high-risk high-order drug combinations. Methods: This expert-review study utilizes potentially high-risk high-order drug combinations and complementary low-risk combinations identified in previously published work from Medicare fee-for-service (2018) and MarketScan Medicare Supplemental claims emergency department (ED) data (2012-2020). We convened a panel of clinical experts to adjudicate the list for clinical feasibility. A standard rubric was developed, and the reviewers indicated whether the data-driven substitutions were always, sometimes, or never clinically acceptable and provided comments. Two experts, not involved in the initial panel review, reviewed the results produced by the panel to determine agreement or disagreement among reviewers. The results of this clinical review are presented. Results: Of the 1904 high-/low-risk combinations reviewed, 606 were deemed always acceptable; 588 were anticoagulant ADEs, 18 were opioid, and none were antidiabetic. The 20 most frequently observed high-risk combinations were all anticoagulant ADEs; 11 of the top 20 involved proton pump inhibitor substitution and 9 involved statin substitutions. Conclusion: High-risk high-order DDIs with low-risk alternatives as identified in Medicare fee-for-service and MarketScan databases are identifiable, are clinically acceptable, and could decrease ADE-related ED visits.
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.