Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28008599›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2017

Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions/Screening Tools to Alert Doctors to Right Treatment Medication Criteria Modified for U.S. Nursing Home Setting.

Dmitry Khodyakov, Aileen Ochoa, Brianne L Olivieri-Mui, Carla Bouwmeester, Barbara J Zarowitz, Meenakshi Patel, Diana Ching, Becky Briesacher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Potentially Inappropriate Drug Duplication in a Cohort of Older Adults with Dementia.Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

8 authors.

Dmitry KhodyakovRAND Corporation and RAND Pardee Graduate School, Santa Monica, California.
Aileen OchoaSchool of Pharmacy, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Brianne L Olivieri-MuiSchool of Pharmacy, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Carla BouwmeesterSchool of Pharmacy, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Barbara J ZarowitzOmnicare, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Meenakshi PatelBoonshoft School of Medicine, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio.
Diana ChingSchool of Pharmacy, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Becky BriesacherSchool of Pharmacy, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Gaps in Medicare Part D Self-Enrollment & Nursing Home ResidentsR01AG046341 · NIA · NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY · PI BRIESACHER, BECKY A · 2014 to 2016
$1.4M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG046341
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo develop a set of prescribing indicators measurable with available data from electronic nursing home (NH) databases by adapting the European-based 2014 Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions (STOPP) and Screening Tools to Alert Doctors to Right Treatment (START) criteria of potentially inappropriate and underused medications for the U.S.

setting

designA two-stage expert panel process. In the first stage, the investigator team reviewed 114 criteria for compatibility and measurability. In the second stage, an online modified e-Delphi (OMD) panel was convened to rate the validity of criteria, and two webinars were held to identify criteria with highest relevance to U.S. NHs.

participantsSeventeen experts with recognized reputations in NH care participated in the e-Delphi panel and 12 in the webinar. MEASUREMENTS: Compatibility and measurability were assessed by comparing criteria with U.S. terminology and setting standards and data elements in NH databases. Validity was rated using a 9-point Likert-type scale (1 = not valid at all, 9 = highly valid). Mean, median, interpercentile ranges, and agreement were determined for each criterion score. Relevance was determined by ranking the mean panel ratings on criteria that reached agreement; the webinar participants reviewed and approved half of the criteria with the highest mean values.

resultsFifty-three STOPP/START criteria were deemed to be compatible with the U.S. NH setting and measurable using data from electronic NH databases. E-Delphi panelists rated 48 criteria as valid for U.S. NHs. Twenty-four criteria were deemed to be most relevant, consisting of 22 measures of potentially inappropriate medications and two measures of underused medications.

conclusionThis study created the first explicit criteria for assessing the quality of prescribing in U.S. NHs.

Indexed as

Nursing HomesPotentially Inappropriate Medication ListAgedDelphi TechniqueHumansInappropriate PrescribingPolypharmacyReproducibility of ResultsUnited Stateslong term careolder adultspolypharmacySTOPP/START criteria

Identifiers

PMID28008599
PMCPMC5370573

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.