ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Prediction tools to prioritise hospitalised adult patients at risk of drug related problems: An umbrella review.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Risk prediction tools assist pharmacists to identify and prioritise hospitalised patients at risk of drug-related problems (DRPs) requiring clinical review. This umbrella review identifies existing risk prediction tools, summarises their performance, and highlights factors important for prioritising hospitalised adults at risk of DRPs for clinical review. A systematic search of three bibliographic databases from January 2010 to March 2024, identified systematic reviews that qualitatively or quantitatively examined patient- and/or medication-related factors in risk prediction or prioritisation models or tools for adult inpatients at risk of DRPs. Extracted data included citation, review type, number and date range of primary studies, population, setting, outcomes, and key risk factors. Risk prediction tools were summarised by country, sample size, performance metrics (discrimination, sensitivity, calibration), number of risk factors, and external validation. All extracted data was checked by a second reviewer. The standardized Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal instruments were used to assess the quality of eligible studies. Twenty systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria, of which 18 were of sufficient quality for synthesis. Selected articles covered 171 unique primary studies and 32 risk prediction tools, of which 12 demonstrated acceptable or good discrimination of which four also had good calibration. Two tools showed the highest potential for future clinical use based on their performance metrics and external validation data but would benefit from further validation in diverse populations. Commonly reported risk factors for DRPs were psycholeptic medications (reported in 13 systematic reviews), age, comorbidities and reduced renal function (n = 12 reviews). Based on the reviews included, no tools appear to be yet suitable for routine clinical practice due to limited external validation, calibration and unclear risk factor definitions; however, some show promise for further development and testing. Data on existing risk prediction tools and risk factors provides a foundation for refining or automating current models, for instance via machine learning approaches that can iteratively incorporate risk factors to ease use and improve prediction of DRPs within specific clinical settings.
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.