ArticleBMJ open2016
PIPc study: development of indicators of potentially inappropriate prescribing in children (PIPc) in primary care using a modified Delphi technique.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Tools for Identifying Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions for Children and Their Applicability in Clinical Practices: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Paediatric Rational Prescribing: A Systematic Review of Assessment Tools.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Identifying potential prescribing safety indicators related to mental health disorders and medications: A systematic review.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Quality Assessment Indicators for Well-Child Care in Primary Health Care: A Scoping Review of Global Trends, Standardization, and Dimensions of Care.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Global variation in antibiotic prescribing guidelines and the implications for decreasing AMR in the future.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Article
- The development and validation of a medicines optimisation tool to protect the physical health of people with severe mental illness (OPTIMISE).BMC psychiatry · 2022Review
- A tool for screening potentially inappropriate prescribing in Chinese children.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Prescribing Indicators in a Paediatric Population Seen in an Outpatient Consultation at the Gaspard Kamara Health Centre in 2019 (Senegal).Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Development of a European competency framework for health and other professionals to support behaviour change in persons self-managing chronic disease.BMC medical education · 2021Article
- Evaluation of rational prescribing in paediatrics.BMJ paediatrics open · 2021Article
- Expert Consensus on a List of Inappropriate Prescribing after Prescription Review in Pediatric Units in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire.Integrated pharmacy research & practice · 2021Article
- Article
- Optimising prescribing for patients with severe mental illness: the need for criteria.Evidence-based mental health · 2019Review
- Modifying a Paediatric Rational Prescribing Tool (POPI) for Use in the UK.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Article
- 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThere is limited evidence regarding the quality of prescribing for children in primary care. Several prescribing criteria (indicators) have been developed to assess the appropriateness of prescribing in older and middle-aged adults but few are relevant to children. The objective of this study was to develop a set of prescribing indicators that can be applied to prescribing or dispensing data sets to determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in children (PIPc) in primary care settings.
designTwo-round modified Delphi consensus method.
settingIrish and UK general practice.
participantsA project steering group consisting of academic and clinical general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists was formed to develop a list of indicators from literature review and clinical expertise. 15 experts consisting of GPs, pharmacists and paediatricians from the Republic of Ireland and the UK formed the Delphi panel.
results47 indicators were reviewed by the project steering group and 16 were presented to the Delphi panel. In the first round of this exercise, consensus was achieved on nine of these indicators. Of the remaining seven indicators, two were removed following review of expert panel comments and discussion of the project steering group. The second round of the Delphi process focused on the remaining five indicators, which were amended based on first round feedback. Three indicators were accepted following the second round of the Delphi process and the remaining two indicators were removed. The final list consisted of 12 indicators categorised by respiratory system (n=6), gastrointestinal system (n=2), neurological system (n=2) and dermatological system (n=2).
conclusionsThe PIPc indicators are a set of prescribing criteria developed for use in children in primary care in the absence of clinical information. The utility of these criteria will be tested in further studies using prescribing databases.
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.