Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24019054›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2014

Inappropriate prescribing: a systematic overview of published assessment tools.

Carole P Kaufmann, Regina Tremp, Kurt E Hersberger, Markus L Lampert

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 133 papers, 18 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
133citing papers in PubMed, 18 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

133 citing papers in PubMed, 18 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Paediatric Rational Prescribing: A Systematic Review of Assessment Tools.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

73 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Carole P KaufmannPharmaceutical Care Research Group, University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 50, 4056, Basel, Switzerland, carole.kaufmann@unibas.ch.
Regina Tremp
Kurt E Hersberger
Markus L Lampert

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCriteria to assess the appropriateness of prescriptions might serve as a helpful guideline during professional training and in daily practice, with the aim to improve a patient's pharmacotherapy.

objectiveTo create a comprehensive and structured overview of existing tools to assess inappropriate prescribing.

methodSystematic literature search in Pubmed (1991-2013). The following properties of the tools were extracted and mapped in a structured way: approach (explicit, implicit), development method (consensus technique, expert panel, literature based), focused patient group, health care setting, and covered aspects of inappropriate prescribing.

resultsThe literature search resulted in 46 tools to assess inappropriate prescribing.Twenty-eight (61%) of 46 tools were explicit, 8 (17%) were implicit and 10 (22%) used a mixed approach. Thirty-six (78%) tools named older people as target patients and 10 (22%) tools did not specify the target age group. Four (8.5%) tools were designed to detect inappropriate prescribing in hospitalised patients, 9 (19.5%) focused on patients in ambulatory care and 6 (13%) were developed for use in long-term care. Twenty-seven (59%) tools did not specify the health care setting. Consensus methods were applied in the development of 19 tools (41%), the others were based on either simple expert panels (13; 28%) or on a literature search (11; 24%). For three tools (7%) the development method was not described.

conclusionThis overview reveals the characteristics of 46 assessment tools and can serve as a summary to assist readers in choosing a tool, either for research purposes or for daily practice use.

Indexed as

Drug Utilization ReviewGuideline AdherenceHumansInappropriate PrescribingPractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'

Identifiers

PMID24019054

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.