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
. 2022 May;88(5):2035-2051.
doi: 10.1111/bcp.15160. Epub 2021 Dec 15.

Clinical validation of clinical decision support systems for medication review: A scoping review

Affiliations

Clinical validation of clinical decision support systems for medication review: A scoping review

Birgit A Damoiseaux-Volman et al. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2022 May.

Abstract

The aim of this scoping review is to summarize approaches and outcomes of clinical validation studies of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) to support (part of) a medication review. A literature search was conducted in Embase and Medline. In total, 30 articles validating a CDSS were ultimately included. Most of the studies focused on detection of adverse drug events, potentially inappropriate medications and drug-related problems. We categorized the included articles in three groups: studies subjectively reviewing the clinical relevance of CDSS's output (21/30 studies) resulting in a positive predictive value (PPV) for clinical relevance of 4-80%; studies determining the relationship between alerts and actual events (10/30 studies) resulting in a PPV for actual events of 5-80%; and studies comparing output of CDSSs to chart/medication reviews in the whole study population (10/30 studies) resulting in a sensitivity of 28-85% and specificity of 42-75%. We found heterogeneity in the methods used and in the outcome measures. The validation studies did not report the use of a published CDSS validation strategy. To improve the effectiveness and uptake of CDSSs supporting a medication review, future research would benefit from a more systematic and comprehensive validation strategy.

Keywords: adverse drug events; clinical decision support systems; inappropriate prescriptions; validation studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Prisma flow diagram

References

    1. Bouvy JC, De Bruin ML, Koopmanschap MA. Epidemiology of adverse drug reactions in Europe: a review of recent observational studies. Drug Saf. 2015;38(5):437‐453. 10.1007/s40264-015-0281-0 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Taché SV, Sönnichsen A, Ashcroft DM. Prevalence of adverse drug events in ambulatory care: a systematic review. Ann Pharmacother. 2011;45(7–8):977‐989. 10.1345/aph.1P627 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Davies EC, Green CF, Taylor S, Williamson PR, Mottram DR, Pirmohamed M. Adverse drug reactions in hospital in‐patients: a prospective analysis of 3695 patient‐episodes. PLoS ONE. 2009;4(2):e4439. 10.1371/journal.pone.0004439 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Klopotowska JE, Wierenga PC, Stuijt CCM, et al. Adverse drug events in older hospitalized patients: results and reliability of a comprehensive and structured identification strategy. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(8):1‐11. 10.1371/journal.pone.0071045 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Griese‐Mammen N, Hersberger KE, Messerli M, et al. PCNE definition of medication review: reaching agreement. Int J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;40(5):1199‐1208. 10.1007/s11096-018-0696-7 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms