SynthesisPloS one2026
Deterministic and stochastic interventions in reducing drug-drug interactions in inappropriate prescribing: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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
backgroundDrug-drug interactions (DDIs) remain a major contributor to preventable patient harm, particularly in the context of polypharmacy. Over the past two decades, interventions to mitigate inappropriate prescribing have evolved from deterministic, rule-based clinical decision support toward increasingly complex data-driven and stochastic models. However, the extent to which these methodological advances translate into improved clinical safety remains unclear.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines, guided by the SPIDER framework. PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and IEEE Xplore were searched from inception to October 2025 for primary studies evaluating computational or clinical decision support interventions aimed at reducing DDIs or inappropriate prescribing. Eligible studies included deterministic rule-based systems, ontological frameworks, and artificial intelligence-driven predictive models. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool, extended with artificial intelligence-specific considerations (PROBAST+AI). Due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures, findings were synthesized narratively.
resultsTen studies met the inclusion criteria. Earlier interventions predominantly employed deterministic approaches focused on workflow optimization, alert management, and policy enforcement, demonstrating modest improvements in prescribing processes but inconsistent links to patient-level outcomes. More recent studies applied stochastic and generative models using high-dimensional clinical datasets to predict DDIs, reporting strong internal performance metrics. However, PROBAST+AI assessment identified a consistently high risk of bias in the analysis domain for AI-driven studies, primarily due to limited external validation, insufficient calibration reporting, and unclear handling of overfitting and data leakage.
conclusionsWhile stochastic and generative models offer enhanced predictive capacity for DDI detection, current evidence does not demonstrate a proportional improvement in clinically reliable decision support. Deterministic systems provide transparency and safety constraints but lack adaptability to patient-specific contexts. Future interventions must prioritize hybrid architectures that integrate explainable rule-based guardrails with rigorously validated stochastic models to ensure that methodological complexity yields reproducible gains in patient safety.
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.