Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28403876›Full record

ArticleTrials2017

Development of a core outcome set for effectiveness trials aimed at optimising prescribing in older adults in care homes.

Anna N Millar, Amrit Daffu-O'Reilly, Carmel M Hughes, David P Alldred, Garry Barton, Christine M Bond, James A Desborough, Phyo K Myint, Richard Holland, Fiona M Poland and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Development and Delphi validation of a Best Possible Medication History form.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Innovating medication reviews through a technology-enabled process.Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP · 2022
    Article
  20. 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

12 authors.

Anna N MillarSchool of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK. anna.millar@qub.ac.uk.
Amrit Daffu-O'ReillySchool of Healthcare, Baines Wing, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Carmel M HughesSchool of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
David P AlldredSchool of Healthcare, Baines Wing, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Garry BartonNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
Christine M BondInstitute of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
James A DesboroughSchool of Pharmacy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Phyo K MyintInstitute of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Richard HollandNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
Fiona M PolandSchool of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
David WrightSchool of Pharmacy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
CHIPPS Team, University of East Anglia

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0613-20007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrescribing medicines for older adults in care homes is known to be sub-optimal. Whilst trials testing interventions to optimise prescribing in this setting have been published, heterogeneity in outcome reporting has hindered comparison of interventions, thus limiting evidence synthesis. The aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS), a list of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, for all effectiveness trials involving optimising prescribing in care homes. The COS was developed as part of the Care Homes Independent Pharmacist Prescribing Study (CHIPPS).

methodsA long-list of outcomes was identified through a review of published literature and stakeholder input. Outcomes were reviewed and refined prior to entering a two-round online Delphi exercise and then distributed via a web link to the CHIPPS Management Team, a multidisciplinary team including pharmacists, doctors and Patient Public Involvement representatives (amongst others), who comprised the Delphi panel. The Delphi panellists (n = 19) rated the importance of outcomes on a 9-point Likert scale from 1 (not important) to 9 (critically important). Consensus for an outcome being included in the COS was defined as ≥70% participants scoring 7-9 and <15% scoring 1-3. Exclusion was defined as ≥70% scoring 1-3 and <15% 7-9. Individual and group scores were fed back to participants alongside the second questionnaire round, which included outcomes for which no consensus had been achieved.

resultsA long-list of 63 potential outcomes was identified. Refinement of this long-list of outcomes resulted in 29 outcomes, which were included in the Delphi questionnaire (round 1). Following both rounds of the Delphi exercise, 13 outcomes (organised into seven overarching domains: medication appropriateness, adverse drug events, prescribing errors, falls, quality of life, all-cause mortality and admissions to hospital (and associated costs)) met the criteria for inclusion in the final COS.

conclusionsWe have developed a COS for effectiveness trials aimed at optimising prescribing in older adults in care homes using robust methodology. Widespread adoption of this COS will facilitate evidence synthesis between trials. Future work should focus on evaluating appropriate tools for these key outcomes to further reduce heterogeneity in outcome measurement in this context.

Indexed as

Community Pharmacy ServicesHomes for the AgedMedication Therapy ManagementNursing HomesPractice Patterns, Physicians'Research DesignClinical Trials as TopicConsensusDelphi TechniqueDrug PrescriptionsGuideline AdherenceHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationPractice Guidelines as TopicProspective StudiesCare homesCHIPPSConsensusCore outcome setCOSDelphi techniqueMedicines OptimisationOlder adultsOptimising prescribing

Identifiers

PMID28403876
PMCPMC5389003

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.