TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinical validation of clinical decision support systems for medication review
T2 - A scoping review
AU - Damoiseaux-Volman, Birgit A.
AU - Medlock, Stephanie
AU - van der Meulen, Delanie M.
AU - de Boer, Jesse
AU - Romijn, Johannes A.
AU - van der Velde, Nathalie
AU - Abu-Hanna, Ameen
N1 - Funding Information: The innovation funds of Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, supported this work. The sponsor had no role in the design, methods, data collection, analysis and preparation of this paper. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society.
PY - 2022/5
Y1 - 2022/5
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - adverse drug events
KW - clinical decision support systems
KW - inappropriate prescriptions
KW - validation studies
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85121371303&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.15160
DO - https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.15160
M3 - Review article
C2 - 34837238
SN - 0306-5251
VL - 88
SP - 2035
EP - 2051
JO - British journal of clinical pharmacology
JF - British journal of clinical pharmacology
IS - 5
ER -