Cargando…
Clinical validation of clinical decision support systems for medication review: A scoping review
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 ultimatel...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9299995/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34837238 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bcp.15160 |
_version_ | 1784751106165833728 |
---|---|
author | Damoiseaux‐Volman, Birgit A. Medlock, Stephanie van der Meulen, Delanie M. de Boer, Jesse Romijn, Johannes A. van der Velde, Nathalie Abu‐Hanna, Ameen |
author_facet | Damoiseaux‐Volman, Birgit A. Medlock, Stephanie van der Meulen, Delanie M. de Boer, Jesse Romijn, Johannes A. van der Velde, Nathalie Abu‐Hanna, Ameen |
author_sort | Damoiseaux‐Volman, Birgit A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9299995 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92999952022-07-21 Clinical validation of clinical decision support systems for medication review: A scoping review Damoiseaux‐Volman, Birgit A. Medlock, Stephanie van der Meulen, Delanie M. de Boer, Jesse Romijn, Johannes A. van der Velde, Nathalie Abu‐Hanna, Ameen Br J Clin Pharmacol Review Articles 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-12-15 2022-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9299995/ /pubmed/34837238 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bcp.15160 Text en © 2021 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Review Articles Damoiseaux‐Volman, Birgit A. Medlock, Stephanie van der Meulen, Delanie M. de Boer, Jesse Romijn, Johannes A. van der Velde, Nathalie Abu‐Hanna, Ameen Clinical validation of clinical decision support systems for medication review: A scoping review |
title | Clinical validation of clinical decision support systems for medication review: A scoping review |
title_full | Clinical validation of clinical decision support systems for medication review: A scoping review |
title_fullStr | Clinical validation of clinical decision support systems for medication review: A scoping review |
title_full_unstemmed | Clinical validation of clinical decision support systems for medication review: A scoping review |
title_short | Clinical validation of clinical decision support systems for medication review: A scoping review |
title_sort | clinical validation of clinical decision support systems for medication review: a scoping review |
topic | Review Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9299995/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34837238 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bcp.15160 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT damoiseauxvolmanbirgita clinicalvalidationofclinicaldecisionsupportsystemsformedicationreviewascopingreview AT medlockstephanie clinicalvalidationofclinicaldecisionsupportsystemsformedicationreviewascopingreview AT vandermeulendelaniem clinicalvalidationofclinicaldecisionsupportsystemsformedicationreviewascopingreview AT deboerjesse clinicalvalidationofclinicaldecisionsupportsystemsformedicationreviewascopingreview AT romijnjohannesa clinicalvalidationofclinicaldecisionsupportsystemsformedicationreviewascopingreview AT vanderveldenathalie clinicalvalidationofclinicaldecisionsupportsystemsformedicationreviewascopingreview AT abuhannaameen clinicalvalidationofclinicaldecisionsupportsystemsformedicationreviewascopingreview |