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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Damoiseaux‐Volman, Birgit A., Medlock, Stephanie, van der Meulen, Delanie M., de Boer, Jesse, Romijn, Johannes A., van der Velde, Nathalie, Abu‐Hanna, Ameen
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