MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414428593 · doi:10.1097/cce.0000000000001321

Methods of Adverse Event Detection in Intensive Care: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4414428593 on OpenAlexaff
Oleksa Rewa, Janice Y. Kung, Sandy Widder, Jocelyn Slemko

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Explorations · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdverse effectEvent (particle physics)MEDLINEClinical PracticePatient safety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to characterize adverse event detection methods in the ICU setting, including neonatal, pediatric, and adult ICUs, to summarize the evidence of their performance characteristics. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. STUDY SELECTION: Title and abstract screening, as well as full text review, were performed by two reviewers independently using Covidence software. Articles were included if they consisted of original research in a peer-reviewed journal with implementation of an adverse event detection method and reported the total number or category of adverse events, level of harm, or implementation of quality improvement (QI). DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by two reviewers with 20% in duplicate. Extracted data included the study type and period/date, the adverse event detection method, the setting (location and type of ICU), ICU bed base, and the data of interest outlined above in study selection. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifty-nine studies in neonatal, pediatric, and adult ICUs were included. Every category of adverse event detection was represented, including incident reporting (IR) (38 studies), trigger tool use (14 studies), trained observation (TO; 11 studies), and structured review (10 studies). TO identified the most adverse events per 100 patient days (57.3), and IR the least (6.4). Only 12 studies (20%) described QI initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: Detection methods likely need to be used in combination for comprehensive results. Definitions of adverse events and associated harms need to be standardized to facilitate future comparison and better understanding of the performance of individual methods of detection. In addition, more emphasis needs to be placed on the dissemination of practice change in response to detection. These will be important steps to better characterize high rates of adverse events in the ICU, thereby fueling patient safety initiatives.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.077
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.225
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0770.225
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.015
Bibliometrics0.0200.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.214
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.373 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care ExplorationsSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207