Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29350335›Full record

SynthesisDrugs & aging2018

Tools for Assessment of the Appropriateness of Prescribing and Association with Patient-Related Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Nashwa Masnoon, Sepehr Shakib, Lisa Kalisch-Ellett, Gillian E Caughey

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Drugs & aging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Polypharmacy and precision medicine.Cambridge prisms. Precision medicine · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors.

Nashwa MasnoonQuality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Frome Road, Adelaide, SA, Australia. Nashwa.Masnoon@mymail.unisa.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7123-9583
Sepehr ShakibDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Lisa Kalisch-EllettQuality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Frome Road, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Gillian E CaugheyQuality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Frome Road, Adelaide, SA, Australia.

Funding

Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship at the University of South Australia Not applicable
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are tools and criteria in the literature aimed at distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate medicines use. However, many have not been externally validated with regard to patient-related outcomes, potentially limiting their use in clinical practice.

objectivesThe aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review to summarise (1) available prescribing appropriateness assessment tools and criteria, and (2) their associations with patient-related outcomes (external validity).

methodsA systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Informit (Health Collection) databases to screen for articles in English that examined (1) tools to assess the appropriateness of prescribing and (2) associations of tools with patient-related outcomes, published between 2000 and 2016, without any limits placed on the study design, participant age or setting.

resultsAfter screening 1710 articles, removing duplicates and shortlisting relevant articles, 42 prescribing assessment tools were identified. Out of the 42 tools, 78.6% (n = 33) provided guidance around stopping inappropriate medications, 28.6% (n = 12) around starting appropriate medications, 61.9% (n = 26) were explicit (criteria based) and 31.0% (n = 13) had been externally validated, with hospitalisation being the most commonly used patient-related outcome (n = 9, 21.4%).

conclusionThe results of this systematic review highlight the need for evidence-based and externally validated tools, which combine the different aspects of medication management to optimise patient-related outcomes. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017067233.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresDrug PrescriptionsHumansInappropriate Prescribing

Identifiers

PMID29350335

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.