Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26728936›Full record

ArticleThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2016

Usually Available Clinical and Laboratory Data Are Insufficient for a Valid Medication Review: A Crossover Study.

K P G M Hurkens, C Mestres-Gonzalvo, H A J M de Wit, P H M van der Kuy, R Janknegt, F Verhey, J M G A Schols, C D A Stehouwer, B Winkens, W Mulder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Interdisciplinary medication reviews of psychiatric patients - A mixed method evaluation.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors.

K P G M HurkensKim P.G.M. Hurkens, Department of Internal Medicine, section of Geriatric Medicine, Academic Medical Centre, PO box 22660, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Email: k.p.hurkens@amc.uva.nl, Tel: +31 205669111/ +31 205665991, Fax: +31 205669325.
C Mestres-Gonzalvo
H A J M de Wit
P H M van der Kuy
R Janknegt
F Verhey
J M G A Schols
C D A Stehouwer
B Winkens
W Mulder

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo establish the quality of medication reviews performed by nursing home physicians, general practitioners and pharmacists. DESIGN AND

setting15 Pharmacists, 13 general practitioners and 18 nursing home physicians performed a medication review for three cases (A, B and C), at three evaluation moments. First, they received the medication list. Secondly, they also received laboratory results and reason for admission and finally, we added medical history. Remarks were divided into 6 categories, i.e. indication without medication, medication without indication, contraindications/ interactions, dosage problems, double medication and wrong medication. Remarks were compared to the remarks made by our expert panel and scored according to our grading model as appropriate (0 to +3) or missed or potentially harmful (-1). For each medication error category, the percentage of participants who made this error was computed.

resultsAfter the first evaluation moment, the overall estimated mean percentage score was -1.7% for case A, 3.9% for case B, and 8.7% for case C. After the second review, this score was 15.0% for case A, 19.8% for case B, and 22.2% for case C. This further increased to 30.0% for case A, 36.7% for case B and 44% for case C at the final evaluation. The absence of medication where there was an indication (indication without medication) was frequently missed and did not improve after adding the extra information regarding laboratory results, reason for admission and finally medical history.

conclusionIncreasing clinical information helps physicians and pharmacists to improve their medication reviews, however, additional information was still related with a high margin of error. Detection of certain errors becomes easier with additional information, whereas other errors remain undetected. To achieve a high standard of medication review, we have to change the way medication reviews should be performed.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyGeneral PracticeMedication ErrorsNursing HomesPharmacistsPhysiciansCross-Over StudiesFemaleGeneral PractitionersHospitalizationHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID26728936
PMCPMC12878932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.