Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26453592›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2015

Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in long-term care (LTC) patients: validation of the 2014 STOPP-START and 2012 Beers criteria in a LTC population--a protocol for a cross-sectional comparison of clinical and health administrative data.

Lise M Bjerre, Roland Halil, Christina Catley, Barbara Farrell, Matthew Hogel, Cody D Black, Margo Williams, Cristín Ryan, Douglas G Manuel

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02523482 (Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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.

NCT02523482 unknown statusnot on this map

Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing (PIP) in Long-Term Care (LTC) Patients: Validation of the 2014 STOPP-START and 2012 Beers Criteria in a LTC Population

TypeobservationalSponsorBruyère Health Research Institute.Ran2014 to 2016Enrolled275ConditionsPotentially Inappropriate Prescribing (PIP)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Lise M BjerreDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada ICES@ uOttawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Roland HalilDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Bruyere Academic Family Health Team, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Christina CatleyICES@ uOttawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Barbara FarrellDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Matthew HogelDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Cody D BlackDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Margo WilliamsC.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Cristín RyanSchool of Pharmacy, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Douglas G ManuelDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada ICES@ uOttawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Bruyère · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CAOttawa Hospital · CARoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPotentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is frequent and problematic in older patients. Identifying PIP is necessary to improve prescribing quality; ideally, this should be performed at the population level. Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions/Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (STOPP/START) and Beers criteria were developed to identify PIP in clinical settings and are useful at the individual patient level; however, they are time-consuming and costly to apply. Only a subset of these criteria is applicable to routinely collected population-level health administrative data (HAD) because the clinical information necessary to implement these tools is often missing from databases. The performance of subsets of STOPP/START and Beers criteria in HAD compared with clinical data from the same patients is unknown; furthermore, the performance of the updated 2014 STOPP-START and 2012 Beers criteria compared with one another is also unknown. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cross-sectional study of linked HAD and clinical data will be conducted to validate the subsets of STOPP/START and Beers criteria applicable to HAD by comparing their performance when applied to clinical and HAD for the same patients. Eligible patients will be 66 years and over and recently admitted to 1 of 6 long-term care facilities in Ottawa, Ontario. The target sample size is 275, but may be less if statistical significance can be achieved sooner. Medication, diagnostic and clinical data will be collected by a consultant pharmacist. The main outcome measure is the proportion of PIP missed by the subset of STOPP/START and Beers criteria applied to HAD when compared with clinical data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Ottawa Health Services Network Research Ethics Board, the Bruyère Continuing Care Research Ethics Board and the ethics board of the City of Ottawa Long Term Care Homes. Dissemination will occur via publication, national and international conference presentations, and exchanges with regional, provincial and national stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02523482.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleHumansInappropriate PrescribingLong-Term CareMaleOntarioPotentially Inappropriate Medication ListPrevalenceRetrospective StudiesEPIDEMIOLOGYGERIATRIC MEDICINE

Identifiers

PMID26453592
PMCPMC4606433
OpenAlexW2278610596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.