Incidence, causes, and consequences of preventable adverse drug reactions occurring in inpatients: A systematic review of systematic reviews

Abstract

BackgroundPreventable adverse drug reactions (PADRs) in inpatients are associated with harm, including increased length of stay and potential loss of life, and result in elevated costs of care. We conducted an overview of reviews (i.e., a systematic review of systematic reviews) to determine the incidence of PADRs experienced by inpatients. Secondary review objectives were related to assessment of the effects of patient age, setting, and clinical specialty on PADR incidence.MethodsThe protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016043220). We performed a search of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, limiting languages of publication to English and French. We included published systematic reviews that reported quantitative data on the incidence of PADRs in patients receiving acute or ambulatory care in a hospital setting. The full texts of all primary studies for which PADR data were reported in the included reviews were obtained and data relevant to review objectives were extracted. Quality of the included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Both narrative summaries of findings and meta-analyses of primary study data were undertaken.ResultsThirteen systematic reviews encompassing 37 unique primary studies were included. Across primary studies, the PADR incidence was highly varied, ranging from 0.006 to 13.3 PADRs per 100 patients, with a pooled incidence estimate of 0.59 PADRs per 100 patients. Substantial heterogeneity was present across both reviews and primary studies with respect to review/study objectives, patient age, hospital setting, medical discipline, definitions and assessment tools used, event detection methods, endpoints of interest, and units of measure. Thirteen primary studies used prospective event detection methods and had a pooled PADR incidence of 3.13 (2.87–3.38) PADRs per 100 patients; however, extreme statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 97%) indicated this finding should be considered with caution. Subgroup meta-analyses demonstrated that PADR incidence varied significantly with event detection method (prospective > retrospective > voluntary reporting methods), hospital setting (ICU > wards), and medical discipline (medical > surgical). High statistical heterogeneity (I2 > 80%) was present across all analyses, indicating results should be interpreted with caution. Effects of patient age could not be assessed due to poor reporting of age groups used in primary studies.DiscussionThe method of event detection appeared to significantly influence PADR incidence, with prospective methods having the highest reported PADR rate. This finding is in agreement with the background literature. High methodological and statistical heterogeneity across primary studies evaluating adverse drug events reduces the validity of the overall PADR incidence derived from the meta-analyses of the pooled data. Data pooled from studies using only prospective methods of event detection should provide an overall estimate closest to the true PADR incidence; however, our estimate should be considered with caution...

The quality of systematic reviews/meta‐analyses published in the field of bariatrics: A cross‐sectional systematic survey using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS

“…Among studies published in medicine to September 2019, in which the AMSTAR 2 was used as an instrument to evaluate the quality of SR/MA, 23 of 31 papers produced results similar to our study . In the six studies, the methodological quality of most (around 60%) of SRs was critical low to low . This suggests that in many areas, the methodological quality of SR is low or critical low.…”

An umbrella review comparing computer-assisted and conventional total joint arthroplasty: quality assessment and summary of evidence

“…First developed in 2007 (as AMSTAR) to only evaluate the methodological quality of SRs that synthesize evidence from randomized trials, this appraisal tool has been further developed, as AMSTAR 2, in 2017 to expand its use to SRs of randomized trials and non-randomized studies 23. Since its release, AMSTAR 2 has been used widely in many umbrella reviews 27–33. AMSTAR 2 comprises 16 domains, 7 of them are critical domains as they strongly undermine the confidence in the conclusions of the SRs: 1 domain is related to protocol registration, 2 are related to search strategy (adequacy and justifying studies’ exclusion), 2 are related to the assessment of risk of bias of the included studies and its effect on SR conclusions, 1 is related to the method of evidence synthesis, and 1 is related to the publication bias (table 1).…”

Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing and Potential Prescribing Omissions in 82,935 Older Hospitalised Adults: Association with Hospital Readmission and Mortality within Six Months

“…A systematic review of systematic reviews of in-patients of all ages identified 13 reviews, which assessed 37 primary studies. Thirteen of the studies used prospective reporting (which tends to report higher rates than retrospective or voluntary reporting) and found an incidence of 3.13 (2.87, 3.38) per 100 patients, but due to the inadequate reporting of patients' ages, rates were not computed by age [4]. A prospective review of 6427 cases of adverse drug reactions recorded in the German Network of Regional Pharmacovigilance Centers in 2000-2008 identified that adverse drug reactions occurred in 3.3% of admissions to internal medicine wards, and that 60% occurred in those 70 and older.…”