Deawjaroen Kulchalee, Sillabutra Jutatip, Poolsup Nalinee, Stewart Derek, Suksomboon Naeti
Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Faculty of Public Health, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2022 Feb;88(4):1613-1629. doi: 10.1111/bcp.15104. Epub 2021 Oct 30.
This study aimed to review systematically all available prediction tools identifying adult hospitalized patients at risk of drug-related problems, and to synthesize the evidence on performance and clinical usefulness.
PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched for relevant studies. Titles, abstracts and full-text studies were sequentially screened for inclusion by two independent reviewers. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) and the Revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklists were used to assess risk of bias and applicability of prediction tools. A narrative synthesis was performed.
A total of 21 studies were included, 14 of which described the development of new prediction tools (four risk assessment tools and ten clinical prediction models) and six studies were validation based and one an impact study. There were variations in tool development processes, outcome measures and included predictors. Overall, tool performance had limitations in reporting and consistency, with the discriminatory ability based on area under the curve receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) ranging from poor to good (0.62-0.81), sensitivity and specificity ranging from 57.0% to 89.9% and 30.2% to 88.0%, respectively. The Medicines Optimisation Assessment tool and Assessment of Risk tool were prediction tools with the lowest risk of bias and low concern for applicability. Studies reporting external validation and impact on patient outcomes were scarce.
Most prediction tools have limitations in development and validation processes, as well as scarce evidence of clinical usefulness. Future studies should attempt to either refine currently available tools or apply a rigorous process capturing evidence of acceptance, usefulness, performance and outcomes.
本研究旨在系统回顾所有可用于识别成年住院患者药物相关问题风险的预测工具,并综合关于其性能和临床实用性的证据。
检索PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science、Embase和CINAHL数据库以查找相关研究。由两名独立评审员依次筛选标题、摘要和全文研究以纳入。使用预测模型偏倚风险评估工具(PROBAST)和诊断准确性研究修订质量评估(QUADAS-2)清单来评估预测工具的偏倚风险和适用性。进行了叙述性综合分析。
共纳入21项研究,其中14项描述了新预测工具的开发(4种风险评估工具和10种临床预测模型),6项研究基于验证,1项为影响研究。工具开发过程、结局指标和纳入的预测因素存在差异。总体而言,工具性能在报告和一致性方面存在局限性,基于曲线下面积受试者工作特征(AUROC)的辨别能力从差到好(0.62 - 0.81),敏感性和特异性分别为57.0%至89.9%和30.2%至88.0%。药物优化评估工具和风险评估工具是偏倚风险最低且适用性关注度较低的预测工具。报告外部验证和对患者结局影响的研究较少。
大多数预测工具在开发和验证过程中存在局限性,临床实用性证据也很少。未来的研究应尝试改进现有工具或采用严格的过程来获取关于接受度、实用性、性能和结局的证据。