Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30012782›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2018

Quality indicators for responsible use of medicines: a systematic review.

Kenji Fujita, Rebekah J Moles, Timothy F Chen

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Polypharmacy and precision medicine.Cambridge prisms. Precision medicine · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Patient Safety: A Deep Concern to Caregivers.Innovations in pharmacy · 2019
    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

3 authors.

Kenji FujitaSchool of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7876-6004
Rebekah J MolesSchool of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Timothy F ChenSchool of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAll healthcare systems require valid ways to evaluate service delivery. The objective of this study was to identify existing content validated quality indicators (QIs) for responsible use of medicines (RUM) and classify them using multiple frameworks to identify gaps in current quality measurements.

designSystematic review without meta-analysis.

settingAll care settings. SEARCH STRATEGY: CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, International Pharmaceutical Abstract, MEDLINE, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched up to April 2018. An internet search was also conducted. Articles were included if they described medication-related QIs developed using consensus methods. Government agency websites listing QIs for RUM were also included. ANALYSIS: Several multidimensional frameworks were selected to assess the scope of QI coverage. These included Donabedian's framework (structure, process and outcome), the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system and a validated classification for causes of drug-related problems (c-DRPs; drug selection, drug form, dose selection, treatment duration, drug use process, logistics, monitoring, adverse drug reactions and others).

results2431 content validated QIs were identified from 131 articles and 5 websites. Using Donabedian's framework, the majority of QIs were process indicators. Based on the ATC code, the largest number of QIs pertained to medicines for nervous system (ATC code: N), followed by anti-infectives for systemic use (J) and cardiovascular system (C). The most common c-DRPs pertained to 'drug selection', followed by 'monitoring' and 'drug use process'.

conclusionsThis study was the first systematic review classifying QIs for RUM using multiple frameworks. The list of the identified QIs can be used as a database for evaluating the achievement of RUM. Although many QIs were identified, this approach allowed for the identification of gaps in quality measurement of RUM. In order to more effectively evaluate the extent to which RUM has been achieved, further development of QIs may be required.

Indexed as

ConsensusDelivery of Health CareHumansInternationalityPharmaceutical PreparationsPractice Guidelines as TopicPublic HealthQuality Indicators, Health CarePharmaceutical Preparationsperformance measuresquality assurancequality indicatorsquality in health carequality measurementquality of care

Identifiers

PMID30012782
PMCPMC6082479

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.