Nazanin Falconer1, Michael Barras1,2, Neil Cottrell1. 1. School of Pharmacy, Pharmacy Australia Centre of Excellence, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4102, Australia. 2. Princess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Health, 199 Ipswich Road, Woolloongabba, Brisbane, QLD, 4102, Australia.
Abstract
AIM: An emerging approach to reducing hospital adverse drug events is the use of predictive risk scores. The aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise models developed for predicting adverse drug event risk in inpatients. METHODS: Embase, PubMed, CINAHL and Scopus databases were used to identify studies of predictive risk models for hospitalized adult inpatients. Studies had to have used multivariable logistic regression for model development, resulting in a score or rule with two or more variables, to predict the likelihood of inpatient adverse drug events. The Checklist for the critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) was used to critically appraise eligible studies. RESULTS: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Ten described the development of a new model, whilst one study revalidated and updated an existing score. Studies used different definitions for outcome but were synonymous with or closely related to adverse drug events. Four studies undertook external validation, five internally validated and two studies did not validate their model. No studies evaluated impact of risk scores on patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: Adverse drug event risk prediction is a complex endeavour but could help to improve patient safety and hospital resource management. Studies in this review had some limitations in their methods for model development, reporting and validation. Two studies, the BADRI and Trivalle's risk scores, used better model development and validation methods and reported reasonable performance, and so could be considered for further research.
AIM: An emerging approach to reducing hospital adverse drug events is the use of predictive risk scores. The aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise models developed for predicting adverse drug event risk in inpatients. METHODS: Embase, PubMed, CINAHL and Scopus databases were used to identify studies of predictive risk models for hospitalized adult inpatients. Studies had to have used multivariable logistic regression for model development, resulting in a score or rule with two or more variables, to predict the likelihood of inpatient adverse drug events. The Checklist for the critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) was used to critically appraise eligible studies. RESULTS: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Ten described the development of a new model, whilst one study revalidated and updated an existing score. Studies used different definitions for outcome but were synonymous with or closely related to adverse drug events. Four studies undertook external validation, five internally validated and two studies did not validate their model. No studies evaluated impact of risk scores on patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: Adverse drug event risk prediction is a complex endeavour but could help to improve patient safety and hospital resource management. Studies in this review had some limitations in their methods for model development, reporting and validation. Two studies, the BADRI and Trivalle's risk scores, used better model development and validation methods and reported reasonable performance, and so could be considered for further research.
Authors: Marie A Chisholm-Burns; Jeannie Kim Lee; Christina A Spivey; Marion Slack; Richard N Herrier; Elizabeth Hall-Lipsy; Joshua Graff Zivin; Ivo Abraham; John Palmer; Jennifer R Martin; Sandra S Kramer; Timothy Wunz Journal: Med Care Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: D W Bates; E B Miller; D J Cullen; L Burdick; L Williams; N Laird; L A Petersen; S D Small; B J Sweitzer; M Vander Vliet; L L Leape Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 1999-11-22
Authors: Karel G M Moons; Joris A H de Groot; Walter Bouwmeester; Yvonne Vergouwe; Susan Mallett; Douglas G Altman; Johannes B Reitsma; Gary S Collins Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Emma C Davies; Christopher F Green; Stephen Taylor; Paula R Williamson; David R Mottram; Munir Pirmohamed Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-02-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nikesh Parekh; Jennifer M Stevenson; Rebekah Schiff; J Graham Davies; Stephen Bremner; Tischa Van der Cammen; Jatinder Harchowal; Chakravarthi Rajkumar; Khalid Ali Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-07-30 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Jesus Ruiz Ramos; Laura Gras-Martin; Ana María Juanes Borrego; Marta Blazquez-Andion; Mireia Puig Campmany; Maria Antonia Mangues-Bafalluy Journal: J Pharm Technol Date: 2021-04-30
Authors: Widya N Insani; Cate Whittlesea; Hassan Alwafi; Kenneth K C Man; Sarah Chapman; Li Wei Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 3.240