Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23225094›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2013

A comparison of the application of STOPP/START to patients' drug lists with and without clinical information.

Cristín Ryan, Denis O'Mahony, Dónal Óg O'Donovan, Emer O'Grady, Peter Weedle, Julia Kennedy, Stephen Byrne

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Cristín RyanSchool of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK. c.ryan@qub.ac.uk
Denis O'Mahony
Dónal Óg O'Donovan
Emer O'Grady
Peter Weedle
Julia Kennedy
Stephen Byrne
University College Cork · IEQueen's University Belfast · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA European screening tool (STOPP/START) has been formulated to identify the prescribing of potentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs). Pharmacists working in community pharmacies could use STOPP/START as a guide to conducting medication use reviews; however, community pharmacists do not routinely have access to patients' clinical records.

objectiveTo compare the PIM and PPO detection rates from application of the STOPP/START criteria to patients' medication details alone with the detection rates from application of STOPP/START to information on patients' medications combined with clinical information.

settingCommunity Pharmacy.

methodThree pharmacists applied STOPP/START to 250 patient medication lists, containing information regarding dose, frequency and duration of treatment. The PIMs and PPOs identified by each pharmacist were compared with those identified by consensus agreement of two other pharmacists, who applied STOPP/START criteria using patients' full clinical records.

main outcome measureThe main outcome measures were: (1) PIM and PPO detection rates among pharmacists with access to patients' clinical information compared to PIM and PPO detection rates among pharmacists using patients' medication information only, and (2) the levels of agreement (calculated using Cohen's kappa statistic (k)) for the three most commonly identified PIMs and PPOs.

resultsPharmacists with access to patients' clinical records identified significantly fewer PIMs than pharmacists without (p = 0.002). The three most commonly identified PIMs were benzodiazepines, proton pump inhibitors and duplicate drug classes, with kappa (k) statistic agreement ranges of 0.87-0.97, 0.60-0.68 and 0.39-0.85 respectively. PPOs were identified more often (p < 0.001) when clinical information was considered. The three most commonly identified PPOs were: bisphosphonates, β2-agonists and anti-platelets, with kappa (k) statistic agreement ranges of 0.89-1.0, 0.50-0.80 and 0.5-1.0 respectively.

conclusionsPIM detection is likely to be overestimated using STOPP and PPO detection underestimated using START when STOPP/START is used in isolation of clinical information. Agreement for a selected number of criteria for which clinical information is not required is good, suggesting that some criteria may be reliably deployed without clinical information during a medicines use review. However, for STOPP/START criteria to be deployed more effectively by pharmacists, access to the full clinical record is recommended.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCommunity Pharmacy ServicesEuropeFemaleHumansInappropriate PrescribingMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CarePharmacistsPractice Patterns, Physicians'

Identifiers

PMID23225094
OpenAlexW1997368978

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.