Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Jan-Feb;19(1):31-8.
doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000454.

A systematic review to evaluate the accuracy of electronic adverse drug event detection

Affiliations

A systematic review to evaluate the accuracy of electronic adverse drug event detection

Alan J Forster et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 Jan-Feb.

Abstract

Objective: Adverse drug events (ADEs), defined as adverse patient outcomes caused by medications, are common and difficult to detect. Electronic detection of ADEs is a promising method to identify ADEs. We performed this systematic review to characterize established electronic detection systems and their accuracy.

Methods: We identified studies evaluating electronic ADE detection from the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. We included studies if they contained original data and involved detection of electronic triggers using information systems. We abstracted data regarding rule characteristics including type, accuracy, and rationale.

Results: Forty-eight studies met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-four (50%) studies reported rule accuracy but only 9 (18.8%) utilized a proper gold standard (chart review in all patients). Rule accuracy was variable and often poor (range of sensitivity: 40%-94%; specificity: 1.4%-89.8%; positive predictive value: 0.9%-64%). 5 (10.4%) studies derived or used detection rules that were defined by clinical need or the underlying ADE prevalence. Detection rules in 8 (16.7%) studies detected specific types of ADEs.

Conclusion: Several factors led to inaccurate ADE detection algorithms, including immature underlying information systems, non-standard event definitions, and variable methods for detection rule validation. Few ADE detection algorithms considered clinical priorities. To enhance the utility of electronic detection systems, there is a need to systematically address these factors.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study selection. This figure illustrates how studies were identified and included in our review. ADE, adverse drug event.

References

    1. Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Laird N, et al. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. Implications for prevention. ADE Prevention Study Group. JAMA 1995;274:29–34 - PubMed
    1. Bates DW, Evans RS, Murff H, et al. Detecting adverse events using information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003;10:115–28 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Thurmann PA, Thurmann PA. Methods and systems to detect adverse drug reactions in hospitals. Drug Saf 2001;24:961–8 - PubMed
    1. Jha AK, Kuperman GJ, Teich JM, et al. Identifying adverse drug events: development of a computer-based monitor and comparison with chart review and stimulated voluntary report. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998;5:305–14 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, et al. Computerized surveillance of adverse drug events in hospital patients. JAMA 1991;266:2847–51 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms