Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26536861›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2015

Amsterdam tool for clinical medication review: development and testing of a comprehensive tool for pharmacists and general practitioners.

Ruth Mast, Abeer Ahmad, Sacha C Hoogenboom, Walter Cambach, Petra J M Elders, Giel Nijpels, Jacqueline G Hugtenburg

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Patient experiences and opinions on medication review: a qualitative study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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.

Ruth MastDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacy and the EMGO, Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Van Der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.mast@vumc.nl.
Abeer AhmadDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacy and the EMGO, Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Van Der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. a.ahmad@vumc.nl.
Sacha C HoogenboomDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacy and the EMGO, Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Van Der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. s.c.hoogenboom@gmail.com.
Walter CambachInstitute for Rational Drug Use, Utrecht, The Netherlands. waca012@gmail.com.
Petra J M EldersDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine and the EMGO, Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. p.elders@vumc.nl.
Giel NijpelsDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine and the EMGO, Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. g.nijpels@vumc.nl.
Jacqueline G HugtenburgDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacy and the EMGO, Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Van Der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. jg.hugtenburg@vumc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDrug-related problems are prevalent among older patients, and substantially increase the risk of morbidity, (re-)hospitalisation and mortality. To detect drug-related problems and optimize treatment primary caregivers should periodically review the medication of older patients. The aim was to develop a structured, comprehensive but practicable tool to facilitate and support the reviewing of medication of older patients with a chronic disease by pharmacists and general practitioners.

methodsA tool facilitating clinical medication review by community pharmacists was developed on the basis of treatment guidelines, literature data on drug-related problems. For the identification of drug-related problems from the patient's perspective, a script for structured interviews was developed. The tool was optimized by means of a Delphi method with an expert panel and testing in a trial.

resultsThe medication review tool consists of a comprehensive checklist of 124 drug-related problems divided by 20 sections according to physiological systems and diseases, and includes a structured interview script for a patient interviews.

conclusionA structured, comprehensive and practical tool to assist pharmacists and general practitioners to perform clinical medication review including a list of potential drug-related problems in older patients with chronic disease, as well as a script for structured patient interviews, was developed.

Indexed as

Delphi TechniqueGeneral PractitionersMedication Therapy ManagementPharmacistsAgedChecklistHumansNetherlandsPublic HealthReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID26536861
PMCPMC4632353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.