Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35635713›Full record

ArticleEuropean geriatric medicine2022

Performance of a trigger tool for detecting adverse drug reactions in patients with polypharmacy acutely admitted to the geriatric ward.

Nikki M F Noorda, Bastiaan T G M Sallevelt, Wivien L Langendijk, Toine C G Egberts, Eugène P van Puijenbroek, Ingeborg Wilting, Wilma Knol

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European geriatric medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nikki M F NoordaGeriatric Medicine Department, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3508 GA, Utrecht, the Netherlands. n.m.f.noorda-4@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-0719-1618
Bastiaan T G M Sallevelt *Clinical Pharmacy Department, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Wivien L LangendijkGeriatric Medicine Department, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3508 GA, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Toine C G EgbertsClinical Pharmacy Department, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Eugène P van PuijenbroekThe Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands.
Ingeborg WiltingClinical Pharmacy Department, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Wilma KnolGeriatric Medicine Department, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3508 GA, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLUniversity of Groningen · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAdverse drug reactions (ADRs) account for 10% of acute hospital admissions in older people, often under-recognised by physicians. The Dutch geriatric guideline recommends screening all acutely admitted older patients with polypharmacy with an ADR trigger tool comprising ten triggers and associated drugs frequently causing ADRs. This study investigated the performance of this tool and the recognition by usual care of ADRs detected with the tool.

methodsA cross-sectional study was performed in patients ≥ 70 years with polypharmacy acutely admitted to the geriatric ward of the University Medical Centre Utrecht. Electronic health records (EHRs) were screened for trigger-drug combinations listed in the ADR trigger tool. Two independent appraisers assessed causal probability with the WHO-UMC algorithm and screened EHRs for recognition of ADRs by attending physicians. Performance of the tool was defined as the positive predictive value (PPV) for ADRs with a possible, probable or certain causal relation.

resultsIn total, 941 trigger-drug combinations were present in 73% (n = 253/345) of the patients. The triggers fall, delirium, renal insufficiency and hyponatraemia covered 86% (n = 810/941) of all trigger-drug combinations. The overall PPV was 41.8% (n = 393/941), but the PPV for individual triggers was highly variable ranging from 0 to 100%. Usual care recognised the majority of ADRs (83.5%), increasing to 97.1% when restricted to possible and certain ADRs.

conclusionThe ADR trigger tool has predictive value; however, its implementation is unlikely to improve the detection of unrecognised ADRs in older patients acutely admitted to our geriatric ward. Future research is needed to investigate the tool's clinical value when applied to older patients acutely admitted to non-geriatric wards.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsPolypharmacyAgedCross-Sectional StudiesHospitalizationHospitalsHumansAdverse drug eventsAdverse drug reactionsGeriatric medicineMedication safetyPolypharmacy

Identifiers

PMID35635713
PMCPMC9378479
OpenAlexW4282044450

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.