IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0273800.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Variation in detected adverse events using trigger tools: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Luisa C Eggenschwiler
  • Anne W S Rutjes
  • Sarah N Musy
  • Dietmar Ausserhofer
  • Natascha M Nielen
  • René Schwendimann
  • Maria Unbeck
  • Michael Simon

Abstract

Background: Adverse event (AE) detection is a major patient safety priority. However, despite extensive research on AEs, reported incidence rates vary widely. Objective: This study aimed: (1) to synthesize available evidence on AE incidence in acute care inpatient settings using Trigger Tool methodology; and (2) to explore whether study characteristics and study quality explain variations in reported AE incidence. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: To identify relevant studies, we queried PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and three journals in the patient safety field (last update search 25.05.2022). Eligible publications fulfilled the following criteria: adult inpatient samples; acute care hospital settings; Trigger Tool methodology; focus on specialty of internal medicine, surgery or oncology; published in English, French, German, Italian or Spanish. Systematic reviews and studies addressing adverse drug events or exclusively deceased patients were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted version of the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Our main outcome of interest was AEs per 100 admissions. We assessed nine study characteristics plus study quality as potential sources of variation using random regression models. We received no funding and did not register this review. Results: Screening 6,685 publications yielded 54 eligible studies covering 194,470 admissions. The cumulative AE incidence was 30.0 per 100 admissions (95% CI 23.9–37.5; I2 = 99.7%) and between study heterogeneity was high with a prediction interval of 5.4–164.7. Overall studies’ risk of bias and applicability-related concerns were rated as low. Eight out of nine methodological study characteristics did explain some variation of reported AE rates, such as patient age and type of hospital. Also, study quality did explain variation. Conclusion: Estimates of AE studies using trigger tool methodology vary while explaining variation is seriously hampered by the low standards of reporting such as the timeframe of AE detection. Specific reporting guidelines for studies using retrospective medical record review methodology are necessary to strengthen the current evidence base and to help explain between study variation.

Suggested Citation

  • Luisa C Eggenschwiler & Anne W S Rutjes & Sarah N Musy & Dietmar Ausserhofer & Natascha M Nielen & René Schwendimann & Maria Unbeck & Michael Simon, 2022. "Variation in detected adverse events using trigger tools: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(9), pages 1-24, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0273800
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273800
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0273800
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0273800&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0273800?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Julian P. T. Higgins & Simon G. Thompson & David J. Spiegelhalter, 2009. "A re‐evaluation of random‐effects meta‐analysis," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 172(1), pages 137-159, January.
    2. Viechtbauer, Wolfgang, 2010. "Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 36(i03).
    3. Bartosch Nowak & René Schwendimann & Philippe Lyrer & Leo H. Bonati & Gian Marco De Marchis & Nils Peters & Franziska Zúñiga & Lili Saar & Maria Unbeck & Michael Simon, 2022. "Occurrence of No-Harm Incidents and Adverse Events in Hospitalized Patients with Ischemic Stroke or TIA: A Cohort Study Using Trigger Tool Methodology," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-10, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fabio Vieira & Roger Leenders & Joris Mulder, 2024. "Fast meta-analytic approximations for relational event models: applications to data streams and multilevel data," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 1823-1859, October.
    2. Cinar, Ozan & Nakagawa, Shinichi & Viechtbauer, Wolfgang, 2020. "Phylogenetic multilevel meta-analysis: A simulation study on the importance of modeling the phylogeny," EcoEvoRxiv su4zv, Center for Open Science.
    3. Peter Hartley & Patricia Costello & Rachel Fenner & Nathalie Gibbins & Édáin Quinn & Isla Kuhn & Victoria L Keevil & Roman Romero-Ortuno, 2019. "Change in skeletal muscle associated with unplanned hospital admissions in adult patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-21, January.
    4. Fahad M. Al Amer & Christopher G. Thompson & Lifeng Lin, 2021. "Bayesian Methods for Meta-Analyses of Binary Outcomes: Implementations, Examples, and Impact of Priors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-14, March.
    5. Bachmann, Federico & Liseras, Natacha & Graña, Fernando Manuel, 2021. "Innovative performance and firm size: a meta-regression analysis," Nülan. Deposited Documents 3614, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    6. Whitney S Beck & Ed K Hall, 2018. "Confounding factors in algal phosphorus limitation experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-19, October.
    7. Tianyi Qiu & Yu Shi & Josep Peñuelas & Ji Liu & Qingliang Cui & Jordi Sardans & Feng Zhou & Longlong Xia & Weiming Yan & Shuling Zhao & Shushi Peng & Jinshi Jian & Qinsi He & Wenju Zhang & Min Huang &, 2024. "Optimizing cover crop practices as a sustainable solution for global agroecosystem services," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-14, December.
    8. Xindong Xue & W. Robert Reed & Robbie C.M. van Aert, 2022. "Social Capital and Economic Growth: A Meta-Analysis," Working Papers in Economics 22/20, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
    9. Bart Verkuil & Serpil Atasayi & Marc L Molendijk, 2015. "Workplace Bullying and Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis on Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, August.
    10. Francesca Pilotto & Ingolf Kühn & Rita Adrian & Renate Alber & Audrey Alignier & Christopher Andrews & Jaana Bäck & Luc Barbaro & Deborah Beaumont & Natalie Beenaerts & Sue Benham & David S. Boukal & , 2020. "Meta-analysis of multidecadal biodiversity trends in Europe," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:6:p:972-988 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Jonas Schmidt & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2020. "Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 499-518, May.
    13. Yeojin Chung & Sophia Rabe-Hesketh & Vincent Dorie & Andrew Gelman & Jingchen Liu, 2013. "A Nondegenerate Penalized Likelihood Estimator for Variance Parameters in Multilevel Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 685-709, October.
    14. Sofia Dias & Alex J. Sutton & Nicky J. Welton & A. E. Ades, 2013. "Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 3," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(5), pages 618-640, July.
    15. Amanda Kvarven & Eirik Strømland & Conny Wollbrant & David Andersson & Magnus Johannesson & Gustav Tinghög & Daniel Västfjäll & Kristian Ove R. Myrseth, 2020. "The intuitive cooperation hypothesis revisited: a meta-analytic examination of effect size and between-study heterogeneity," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(1), pages 26-42, June.
    16. Mario Herberz & Tobias Brosch & Ulf J. J. Hahnel, 2020. "Kilo what? Default units increase value sensitivity in joint evaluations of energy efficiency," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(6), pages 972-988, November.
    17. repec:osf:metaar:tp45u_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Piers Steel & Sjoerd Beugelsdijk & Herman Aguinis, 2021. "The anatomy of an award-winning meta-analysis: Recommendations for authors, reviewers, and readers of meta-analytic reviews," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(1), pages 23-44, February.
    19. Morris, Tim P & White, Ian R & Pham, Tra My & Quartagno, Matteo, 2023. "How to check a simulation study," OSF Preprints cbr72, Center for Open Science.
    20. Molo, Fabio & Pawel, Samuel & Fraga González, Gorka, 2024. "A Robustness Reproduction of "A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 90 Cohort Studies of Social Isolation, Loneliness and Mortality"," I4R Discussion Paper Series 169, The Institute for Replication (I4R).
    21. Augusteijn, Hilde Elisabeth Maria & van Aert, Robbie Cornelis Maria & van Assen, Marcel A. L. M., 2021. "Posterior Probabilities of Effect Sizes and Heterogeneity in Meta-Analysis: An Intuitive Approach of Dealing with Publication Bias," OSF Preprints avkgj, Center for Open Science.
    22. Georgiou, George K. & Guo, Kan & Naveenkumar, Nithya & Vieira, Ana Paula Alves & Das, J.P., 2020. "PASS theory of intelligence and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0273800. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.