ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
A comparative evaluation of two clinical decision support systems for safer prescribing in older adults: an exploratory single-patient case study.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The geriatric population face a heightened risk of adverse drug events due to multimorbidity and polypharmacy, yet clinical decision support systems used in community pharmacies often lack explicit geriatric prescribing criteria. Methods: This exploratory, proof-of-concept single-patient study evaluated the real-world performance of a newly developed Integrated Clinical Decision Support Tool (PIM Tool), which incorporates the EU (7)-PIM and EURO-FORTA frameworks, and compared it with e-Pharmacist, the clinical decision support module currently used in Estonia's national pharmacy system. A single patient case from the EuroAgeism dataset was analysed, with medications assessed independently in both systems. Results: The PIM Tool identified potentially inappropriate medications based on age, diagnosis, treatment duration, and cumulative risk, whereas e-Pharmacist primarily detected drug-drug interactions, organ-specific cautions, and dose adjustment needs. Several clinically relevant risks, including age-inappropriate long-term therapies and cumulative sedative burden, were primarily identified by the PIM Tool, while interaction-related and monitoring-related risks were captured exclusively by e-Pharmacist. Patient-reported symptoms appeared to align with overlapping risk patterns identified when outputs from both systems were considered together. Discussion: These findings suggest that clinical decision support systems based on geriatric prescribing criteria and those focused on interaction screening may capture different but complementary medication-related risks. Using both approaches together may support a more comprehensive identification of medication-related problems and deprescribing opportunities in community-dwelling older adults.
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.