ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Identification of Medication Prescription Errors and Factors of Clinical Relevance in 314 Hospitalized Patients for Improved Multidimensional Clinical Decision Support Algorithms.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Proactive Geriatric Medication Management and Deprescribing Efforts in Swiss Nursing Home Residents.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical-pharmaceutical assessment of medication CDSS alerts: content appropriateness and patient relevance in clinical practice.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Drug-Drug Interactions in Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.Pharmaceutics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Potential medication errors and related adverse drug events (ADE) pose major challenges in clinical medicine. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) help identify preventable prescription errors leading to ADEs but are typically characterized by high sensitivity and low specificity, resulting in poor acceptance and alert-overriding. With this cross-sectional study we aimed to analyze CDSS performance, and to identify factors that may increase CDSS specificity. Clinical pharmacology services evaluated current pharmacotherapy of 314 patients during hospitalization across three units of two Swiss tertiary care hospitals. We used two CDSSs (pharmaVISTA and MediQ), primarily for the evaluation of drug-drug interactions (DDI). Additionally, we evaluated potential drug-disease, drug-age, drug-food, and drug-gene interactions. Recommendations for change of therapy were forwarded without delay to treating physicians. Among 314 patients, automated analyses by both CDSSs produced an average of 15.5 alerts per patient. In contrast, additional expert evaluation resulted in only 0.8 recommendations per patient to change pharmacotherapy. For clinical pharmacology experts, co-factors such as comorbidities and laboratory results were decisive for the classification of CDSS alerts as clinically relevant in individual patients in about 70% of all decisions. Such co-factors should therefore be used for the development of multidimensional CDSS alert algorithms with improved specificity. In combination with local expert services, this poses a promising approach to improve drug safety in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.