Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26025118›Full record

ArticleDrugs & aging2015

Computerized Decision Support Improves Medication Review Effectiveness: An Experiment Evaluating the STRIP Assistant's Usability.

Michiel C Meulendijk, Marco R Spruit, A Clara Drenth-van Maanen, Mattijs E Numans, Sjaak Brinkkemper, Paul A F Jansen, Wilma Knol

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Drugs & aging, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Polypharmacy and precision medicine.Cambridge prisms. Precision medicine · 2023
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Michiel C MeulendijkDepartment of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, Princetonplein 5, 3584 CC, Utrecht, The Netherlands, m.c.meulendijk@uu.nl.
Marco R Spruit
A Clara Drenth-van Maanen
Mattijs E Numans
Sjaak Brinkkemper
Paul A F Jansen
Wilma Knol

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPolypharmacy poses threats to patients' health. The Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing (STRIP) is a drug optimization process for conducting medication reviews in primary care. To effectively and efficiently incorporate this method into daily practice, the STRIP Assistant--a decision support system that aims to assist physicians with the pharmacotherapeutic analysis of patients' medical records--has been developed. It generates context-specific advice based on clinical guidelines.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to validate the STRIP Assistant's usability as a tool for physicians to optimize medical records for polypharmacy patients.

methodsIn an online experiment, 42 physicians were asked to optimize medical records for two comparable polypharmacy patients, one in their usual manner and one using the STRIP Assistant. Changes in effectiveness were measured by comparing respondents' optimized medicine prescriptions with medication prepared by an expert panel of two geriatrician-pharmacologists. Efficiency was operationalized by recording the time the respondents took to optimize the two cases. User satisfaction was measured with the System Usability Scale (SUS). Independent and paired t tests were used for analysis.

resultsMedication optimization significantly improved with the STRIP Assistant. Appropriate decisions increased from 58% without the STRIP Assistant to 76% with it (p < 0.0001). Inappropriate decisions decreased from 42% without the STRIP Assistant to 24% with it (p < 0.0001). Participants spent significantly more time optimizing medication with the STRIP Assistant (24 min) than without it (13 min; p < 0.0001). They assigned it a below-average SUS score of 63.25.

conclusionThe STRIP Assistant improves the effectiveness of medication reviews for polypharmacy patients.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalMedication Therapy ManagementAdultDrug PrescriptionsFemaleHumansInappropriate PrescribingMaleMiddle AgedPolypharmacyPrimary Health CareSoftware

Identifiers

PMID26025118
PMCPMC4469772

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.