Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17727304›Full record

ReviewDrugs & aging2007

A composite screening tool for medication reviews of outpatients: general issues with specific examples.

Peter A G M De Smet, Wilma Denneboom, Cees Kramers, Richard Grol

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs & aging, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Deprescribing of non-antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected patients.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Potentially inappropriate medications among elderly Brazilian outpatients.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2013
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Medication errors: the importance of safe dispensing.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2009
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Peter A G M De SmetScientific Institute Dutch Pharmacists, The Hague, The Netherlands. pdesmet@winap.nl
Wilma Denneboom
Cees Kramers
Richard Grol

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regular performance of medication reviews is prominent among methods that have been advocated to reduce the extent and seriousness of drug-related problems, such as adverse drug reactions, drug-disease interactions, drug-drug interactions, drug ineffectiveness and cost ineffectiveness. Several screening tools have been developed to guide practising healthcare professionals and researchers in reviewing the medication patterns of elderly patients; however, each of these tools has its own limitations. This review discusses a wide range of general prescription-, treatment- and patient-related issues that should be taken into account when reviewing medication patterns by implicit screening. These include generic and therapeutic substitution; potentially superfluous or inappropriate medications; potentially inappropriate dosages or duration of treatment; drug-disease and drug-drug interactions; under-treatment; making use of laboratory test results; patient adherence, experiences and habits; appropriate dosage forms and packaging. A broad selection of specific examples and references that can be used as a basis for explicit screening of medication patterns in outpatients is also offered.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsOutpatientsAgedDosage FormsDrug InteractionsDrug PackagingDrug PrescriptionsDrug Utilization ReviewGeriatricsHumansMedication ErrorsPolypharmacyTherapeutic EquivalencyTreatment RefusalDosage Forms

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.