ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2016
Assessing prescribing of NSAIDs, antiplatelets, and anticoagulants in Canadian family medicine using chart review.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Impact of a Prescription Support Tool to Improve Adherence to the Guidelines for the Prescription of Oral Antithrombotics: The Combi-AT Randomized Controlled Trial Using Clinical Vignettes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Drug-related problems have been identified as a major contributor to emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and death. The most commonly implicated medications are nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antiplatelets, and anticoagulants. Considering a significant proportion of these harms are preventable, indicators to identify risky prescribing before they lead to harm have been developed. Objective To examine the prevalence and patterns of potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) in a primary care population who are using high-risk medications. Setting This study was performed within two multi-disciplinary family medicine teaching clinics in Winnipeg, Canada. Method A cross-sectional electronic/paper chart audit was conducted within two multi-disciplinary family medicine teaching clinics to evaluate the prevalence of 13 evidence-based high-risk prescriptions. Patients were included if they were prescribed an oral NSAID, antiplatelet, or an anticoagulant within the 12 month period between June 2012 and June 2013. Main outcome measure The proportion of PIPs associated with an increased bleeding risk for NSAIDs, antiplatelets, and anticoagulants. Results Of the 567 patients included in the review, 198 (35 %) patients had received at least 1 PIP in the past year. The most common PIP was the use of an oral NSAID with one or more GI risk factors without adequate gastro-protection. Only 34 (6 %) of these patients received a full medication review performed by a pharmacist. Although not statistically significant, patients who received a medication review had fewer inappropriate prescriptions (27 % with review, 35 % without). Conclusion Over one-third of the patients who were using high-risk medications were using them potentially inappropriately. Although pharmacists have been shown to reduce the amount of inappropriate prescribing, very few patients using these medications were referred to the pharmacist for a full medication review. These data suggest that there is opportunity for the identification and assessment of these patients when prescribing or dispensing these high-risk medications.
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.