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.
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.
Authors: Carol Hope; J Marc Overhage; Andrew Seger; Evgenia Teal; Vera Mills; Julie Fiskio; Tejal K Gandhi; David W Bates; Michael D Murray Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2003 Feb-Apr Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Jon B Silverman; Carl D Stapinski; Camilla Huber; Tejal K Ghandi; William W Churchill Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: R A Raschke; B Gollihare; T A Wunderlich; J R Guidry; A I Leibowitz; J C Peirce; L Lemelson; M A Heisler; C Susong Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-10-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: H Dormann; M Criegee-Rieck; A Neubert; T Egger; M Levy; E G Hahn; K Brune Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2004-02-01 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Sara Ibáñez-Garcia; Carmen Rodriguez-Gonzalez; Vicente Escudero-Vilaplana; Maria Luisa Martin-Barbero; Belén Marzal-Alfaro; Jose Luis De la Rosa-Triviño; Irene Iglesias-Peinado; Ana Herranz-Alonso; Maria Sanjurjo Saez Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Amaia Calderón-Larrañaga; Beatriz Poblador-Plou; Francisca González-Rubio; Luis Andrés Gimeno-Feliu; José María Abad-Díez; Alexandra Prados-Torres Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Olga Morales Ríos; Luis Jasso Gutiérrez; Juan O Talavera; Martha María Téllez-Rojo; Víctor Olivar López; Juan Garduño Espinosa; Onofre Muñoz Hernández Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2016-02
Authors: Chaitanya Shivade; Preethi Raghavan; Eric Fosler-Lussier; Peter J Embi; Noemie Elhadad; Stephen B Johnson; Albert M Lai Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 4.497