Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29950469›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Assessing the ability of the Drug-Associated Risk Tool (DART) questionnaire to stratify hospitalised older patients according to their risk of drug-related problems: a cross-sectional validation study.

Dominik Stämpfli, Fabienne Boeni, Andy Gerber, Victor A D Bättig, Rebekka Weidmann, Kurt E Hersberger, Markus L Lampert

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Dominik StämpfliDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Fabienne BoeniDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Andy GerberGerontopharmakologie, Felix Platter-Hospital, Basel, Switzerland.
Victor A D BättigDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Rebekka WeidmannDepartment of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Kurt E HersbergerDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Markus L LampertDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe Drug-Associated Risk Tool (DART) has been developed as a self-administered questionnaire for patients with the aim of stratifying patients according to their risk of drug-related problems (DRPs). We aimed to validate the ability of the questionnaire to distinguish between hospitalised patients showing lower and higher numbers of DRPs.

designCross-sectional study assessing the questionnaire's concurrent criterion validity.

settingFive geriatric and the associated physical and neurological rehabilitation wards of a Swiss regional secondary care hospital with 617 beds.

participantsWe recruited 110 patients from a total of 437 admissions. Exclusion criteria were insufficient knowledge in spoken or written German, medical conditions preventing meaningful conversations and already receiving pharmacy services.

interventionsComprehensive pharmacist-led clinical medication reviews were performed, including patient interviews, to identify potential and manifest DRPs. A cluster analysis was conducted to assess the discriminatory potential of the DART to group patients according to number (low and high) of identified DRPs. A subsequent discriminatory function analysis was performed to reduce the number of items. We determined which DART items may be used to trigger what type of medication review.

resultsRecruited patients had a median age of 79 years and were prescribed a median of 11 drugs. Patients with a median DART score of 10 and a median of 3 DRPs represented one cluster, whereas patients with a median DART score of 15 and a median of 8 DRPs represented another cluster. Discriminatory function analysis reduced the questionnaire to five items with a moderate to strong correlation with the number of DRPs per patient (Spearman's rank correlation ρ=0.44). Additional items were associated with patients benefiting from interviews.

conclusionsAs a self-administered questionnaire for patients, the DART may be used to stratify hospitalised non-acute older patients in groups of having low and high likelihood of DRPs. The analyses showed that a short form of the DART can be used instead of the full tool to identify older inpatients at risk for DRPs. Additional eight items from the DART may be used to initiate additional clinical pharmacy services. The linkage between certain DART questions and type of medication review enables pharmacist resource allocation.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleMedication AdherenceMedication ErrorsMiddle AgedPharmacy Service, HospitalPractice Patterns, Physicians'Prospective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsRisk Assessmentdrug-related side effects and adverse reactionsmedication therapy managementpharmacistspharmacy service, hospitalsurveys and questionnairesvalidation studies

Identifiers

PMID29950469
PMCPMC6042600

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.