ArticlePharmacy world & science : PWS2005
Development and face validity of explicit indicators of appropriateness of long term prescribing.
Article in Pharmacy world & science : PWS, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying potential prescribing safety indicators related to mental health disorders and medications: A systematic review.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Developing a measure of polypharmacy appropriateness in primary care: systematic review and expert consensus study.BMC medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Optimising prescribing practices in older adults with multimorbidity: a scoping review of guidelines.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Prescribing-Assessment Tools for Long-Term Care Pharmacy Practice: Reaching Consensus through a Modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Development and validation of a new Prescription Quality Index.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2010Article
- Inter-rater reliability of explicit indicators of prescribing appropriateness.Pharmacy world & science : PWS · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop a set of explicit and operationalisable indicators of appropriate prescribing and assess their face validity using clinical pharmacists practising in secondary and primary care.
methodAppropriateness indicators were derived from the literature, applied to data in the hospital clinical records of all newly prescribed long-term drugs for 50 randomly selected patients, further refined and then applied to another 25 randomly selected patients. A pre-piloted postal questionnaire was sent to 200 hospitals and primary care pharmacists, asking them to assess the indicators as to their importance for the assessment of appropriateness of long-term prescribing initiated in hospitals.
resultsFourteen indicators were developed and piloted. Of the 16 original indicators, 5 were discarded, as they were unable to be operationalised, and 2 were subdivided to reflect the routinely available data. Eighty-six pharmacists with individual patient-focussed clinical duties took part in the assessment of the face validity (response rate 43%). Eleven indicators achieved a median importance rating of 1 (very important), and three indicators a median importance rating of 2 on a 5-point scale. The three most important indicators overall were "indication included in discharge summary", "questionable high-risk therapeutic combination" and "hazardous drug-drug combination".
conclusionIt was possible to develop and operationalise 14 indicators of the appropriateness of long-term prescribing commenced in hospital practice, all of which were considered to have face validity by an expert panel of clinical pharmacists. The development of these explicit indicators highlighted the incompleteness of the patient's record. Further work is needed to assess their validity and reliability, before their use in research or audit can be recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.