Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22715864›Full record

ArticleDrugs & aging2012

Content validity and inter-rater reliability of an instrument to characterize unintentional medication discrepancies.

Coraline Claeys, Jean Nève, Paul M Tulkens, Anne Spinewine

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Drugs & aging, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. 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.

Coraline ClaeysUniversit libre de Bruxelles, Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, Brussels, Belgium. coraline.claeys@gmail.com
Jean Nève
Paul M Tulkens
Anne Spinewine

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedication discrepancies are medication-related problems (MRPs) that frequently occur when patients are transferred between settings of care. Older patients are at high risk for several reasons, including high consumption of medicines, and physical and cognitive deficiencies that can impair the communication process. Most previous studies that have evaluated medication discrepancies used instruments designed for clinical practice, but a well-validated and reliable instrument for clinical research is still lacking.

objectivesThe aims of this study were to (i) develop an instrument to characterize medication discrepancies that fulfils quality requirements for classification of MRPs related to continuity of care and (ii) assess its content validity and inter-rater reliability.

methodsThe instrument was developed based on three main inputs: (i) a literature review to collect information about the quality requirements of instruments to characterize MRPs; (ii) another literature review to identify existing instruments to characterize MRPs and, more specifically, medication discrepancies; and (iii) previous experience from a pilot study on Belgian patients discharged from surgical and medical wards. Content validity was assessed using a modified Delphi technique with 11 healthcare professionals. Content validity indexes were calculated. For inter-rater reliability, three pharmacists (one experienced and two naive) were asked to identify and categorize (type and cause of) unintentional medication discrepancies for 21 patients discharged from hospital into the community. The intra-class correlation coefficient was calculated to compare the number of discrepancies identified, and a paradox-resistant index (AC1) was used to determine the inter-rater reliability for the type and cause of the discrepancy.

resultsThe instrument had 54 items classified in three sections (type of discrepancy, cause and intervention), with detailed specifications on how to use it. All evaluations relative to content validity met predefined cut-off values, except for two of them. Intra-class correlation coefficients of ≥0.76 and AC1 coefficients of ≥0.89 were found for the number and the type of discrepancies, respectively. Regarding evaluation of the specific causes of medication discrepancies, final AC1 results of ≥0.86 were obtained, except for three items (which had values between 0.62 and 0.79).

conclusionThe validity and reliability of the instrument developed to assess unintentional medication discrepancies at patient transition from the hospital to the community setting was found to be satisfactory.

Indexed as

Continuity of Patient CareDelphi TechniqueHumansMedication ErrorsObserver VariationQuality ControlReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID22715864

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.