Trial reportPharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2014
Validation of a claims-based antipsychotic polypharmacy measure.
Trial report in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychotropic prescribing patterns during pregnancy in two South African mental health clinics.Journal of the colleges of medicine of South Africa · 2025Article
- Unraveling ethnic disparities in antipsychotic prescribing among patients with psychosis: A retrospective cohort study based on electronic clinical records.Schizophrenia research · 2023Article
- Statistical Approaches for Quantifying the Quality of Neurosurgical Care.World neurosurgery · 2022Observational
- Significance and Factors Associated with Antipsychotic Polypharmacy Utilization Among Publicly Insured US Adults.Administration and policy in mental health · 2022Article
- Real-World Direct Health Care Costs Associated with Psychotropic Polypharmacy Among Adults with Common Cancer Types in the United States.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2019Observational
- Choosing wisely? Quantifying the extent of three low value psychotropic prescribing practices in Australia.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Differences in Medicaid Antipsychotic Medication Measures Among Children with SSI, Foster Care, and Income-Based Aid.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2018Article
- Psychotropic polypharmacy in Australia, 2006 to 2015: a descriptive cohort study.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017Article
- Extracting antipsychotic polypharmacy data from electronic health records: developing and evaluating a novel process.BMC psychiatry · 2015Article
- Best Practices: MEDNET: a multistate policy maker-researcher collaboration to improve prescribing practices.Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) · 2014Article
- Quality concerns in antipsychotic prescribing for youth: a review of treatment guidelines.Academic pediatricsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose Given the metabolic and neurologic side effects of antipsychotics and concerns about the increased risks associated with concomitant use, antipsychotic polypharmacy is a quality concern. This study assessed the operating characteristics of a Medicaid claims-based measure of antipsychotic polypharmacy. Methods A random sample from 10 public mental health clinics and 312 patients met criteria for this study. Medical record extractors were blind to measure status. We examined the prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) in Medicaid claims, testing nine different definitions of antipsychotic polypharmacy, including >14, >60, or >90 days concurrent use of ≥2 antipsychotic agents, each with allowable gaps of up to 0, 14, or 32 days in days' supply of antipsychotic medications. Results All Medicaid claims measure definitions tested had excellent specificity and PPV (>91%). Good to excellent sensitivity was dependent upon use of a 32-day gap allowance, particularly as duration of concurrent antipsychotic use increased. The proposed claims-based measure (90-day concurrent use of ≥2 or more antipsychotics, allowing for a 32-day gap) had excellent specificity (99.1%, 95%CI: 98.2-99.6) and PPV (90.9%, 95%CI: 83.1-95.7) with good sensitivity (79.4%, 95%CI: 70.4-86.6). The overall level of concordance between claims and medical record-based categorization of antipsychotic polypharmacy was high (96.4%, n = 301/312 clients, Cohen's K = 84.7, 95%CI: 75.9-93.5). Discrepant cases were reviewed, and implications are discussed. Conclusions Administrative claims data can be used to construct valid measures of antipsychotic polypharmacy.
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.