ArticleBMJ open2017
PIM-Check: development of an international prescription-screening checklist designed by a Delphi method for internal medicine patients.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Identifying potential prescribing safety indicators related to mental health disorders and medications: A systematic review.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Impact of Pharmaceutical Interventions with STOPP/START and PIM-Check in Older Hospitalized Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Drugs & aging · 2022Trial
- Healthcare Costs Associated with Potentially Inappropriate Medication Prescribing Detected by Computer Algorithm Among Older Patients.Drugs & aging · 2022Trial
- Evidence on interventions that target prescribing appropriateness in older adults attending the emergency department and other acute care settings: a scoping review.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Validation of an Infarction Code Care Checklist and Determination of its Relationship With Other Patient Safety Indicators: Protocol for a Prospective Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Adaptive questionnaires for facilitating patient data entry in clinical decision support systems: methods and application to STOPP/START v2.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Multidisciplinary medication review during older patient hospitalization according to STOPP/START criteria reduces potentially inappropriate prescriptions: MoPIM cohort study.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Clinical risk assessment of modelled situations in a pharmaceutical decision support system: a modified e-Delphi exploratory study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
- Development and Delphi validation of a Best Possible Medication History form.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2023Article
- Potentially Inappropriate Medication Dispensing in Outpatients: Comparison of Different Measurement Approaches.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2023Article
- Development and assessment of PharmaCheck: an electronic screening tool for the prevention of twenty major adverse drug events.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Physicians' Knowledge, Altitudes, and Perceived Barriers of Inappropriate Prescribing for Older Patients in Shanghai, China.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Development of a medication review tool for residents in Korean long-term care facilities.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2022Article
- REview of potentially inappropriate MEDIcation pr[e]scribing in Seniors (REMEDI[e]S): French implicit and explicit criteria.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Article
- Ability to detect potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients: comparative analysis between PIM-Check and STOPP/STARTv2.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Observational
- Incorporating pharmacokinetic data into personalised prescribing for older people: challenges and opportunities.European geriatric medicine · 2021Review
- Expert Consensus on a List of Inappropriate Prescribing after Prescription Review in Pediatric Units in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire.Integrated pharmacy research & practice · 2021Article
- Impact of Pharmaceutical Interventions in Hospitalized Patients: A Comparative Study Between Clinical Pharmacists and an Explicit Criteria-Based Tool.Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental · 2021Article
- TOP-ID: a Delphi technique-guided development of a prescription and deprescription tool for adults with intellectual disabilities.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Medication prescribing checklists and their impact on patient safety: A scoping review.Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhAArticle
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
objectivesPotentially inappropriate medication (PIM) occurs frequently and is a well-known risk factor for adverse drug events, but its incidence is underestimated in internal medicine. The objective of this study was to develop an electronic prescription-screening checklist to assist residents and young healthcare professionals in PIM detection.
designFive-step study involving selection of medical domains, literature review and 17 semistructured interviews, a two-round Delphi survey, a forward/back-translation process and an electronic tool development.
setting22 University and general hospitals from Canada, Belgium, France and Switzerland.
participants40 physicians and 25 clinical pharmacists were involved in the study.Agreement with the checklist statements and their usefulness for healthcare professional training were evaluated using two 6-point Likert scales (ranging from 0 to 5). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement and usefulness ratings were defined as: >65% of the experts giving the statement a rating of 4 or 5, during the first Delphi-round and >75% during the second.
results166 statements were generated during the first two steps. Mean agreement and usefulness ratings were 4.32/5 (95% CI 4.28 to 4.36) and 4.11/5 (4.07 to 4.15), respectively, during the first Delphi-round and 4.53/5 (4.51 to 4.56) and 4.36/5 (4.33 to 4.39) during the second (p<0.001). The final checklist includes 160 statements in 17 medical domains and 56 pathologies. An algorithm of approximately 31 000 lines was developed including comorbidities and medications variables to create the electronic tool.
conclusionPIM-Check is the first electronic prescription-screening checklist designed to detect PIM in internal medicine. It is intended to help young healthcare professionals in their clinical practice to detect PIM, to reduce medication errors and to improve patient safety.
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.