rss
J Am Med Inform Assoc 19:31-38 doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000454
  • Review

A systematic review to evaluate the accuracy of electronic adverse drug event detection

  1. Carl van Walraven1,2
  1. 1Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  2. 2Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Alan J Forster, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, ASB 1-007, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4E9, Canada; aforster{at}ohri.ca
  • Received 29 June 2011
  • Accepted 13 October 2011

Abstract

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.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Related Article

Access policy for JAMIA

All content published in JAMIA is deposited with PubMed Central by the publisher with a 12 month embargo. Authors/funders may pay an Unlocked fee of $2,000 to make the article free on the JAMIA website and PMC immediately on publication.

All content older than 12 months is freely available on this website.

AMIA members can log in with their JAMIA user name (email address) and password or via the AMIA website.