Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30646263›Full record

SynthesisJAMA network open2018

Association of Focused Medication Review With Optimization of Psychotropic Drug Prescribing: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Rory Sheehan, André Strydom, Emma Brown, Louise Marston, Angela Hassiotis

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Exergames in Childhood Obesity Treatment: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Clinical audit of psychotropic medication use at a South African intellectual disability hospital.The South African journal of psychiatry : SAJP : the journal of the Society of Psychiatrists of South Africa · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rory SheehanDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
André StrydomForensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Emma BrownDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Louise MarstonDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Angela HassiotisDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
University College London · GBKing's College London · GB

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2016-09-140Department of Health RP-DG-0611-10003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Medication review has been proposed to achieve improved use of psychotropic drugs, but benefits have not been confirmed. Objective: To synthesize evidence for focused psychotropic medication review in medication optimization. Data Sources: Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus were searched from inception to February 2018 using the index terms "drug utilization review" and "psychotropic drugs" and synonyms. Additional articles were retrieved using citation tracking and reference checking. Study Selection: Full-length, peer-reviewed articles that reported focused psychotropic medication review were included. Inclusion was determined against prespecified criteria and assessed independently. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Study quality was assessed using National Institutes for Health appraisal tools and informed a structured synthesis of results. Meta-analysis using a random effects model was conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in the number or dosage of psychotropic medications, change in clinical parameters, change in patient-reported outcomes, and economic data were collected. Results: A total of 26 studies met the inclusion criteria. Four studies were randomized clinical trials (n = 712 participants), while the remainder were before-after studies (n = 7844 participants). Most studies were conducted in elderly individuals, people with dementia, and adults with intellectual disability. Focused psychotropic medication review is a complex intervention; the professional(s) involved, target drug, degree of integration with usual care, and participant involvement varied greatly among the studies. Meta-analysis included 3 studies (n = 652 participants). Psychotropic medication review was associated with a reduction in prescribing of psychotropic drugs compared with control (pooled odds ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.14-0.39) in elderly participants with cognitive impairment living in nursing homes. Before-after studies consistently reported a change in psychotropic drug prescribing after medication review, regardless of the population. Studies that reported the effects of psychotropic medication review on clinical outcomes failed to demonstrate benefit. Economic implications of focused psychotropic medication review were not adequately assessed. The quality of evidence is poor and studies are at risk of bias. Conclusions and Relevance: Focused psychotropic medication review was associated with a reduction in prescribing of psychotropic drugs, but has not been shown to improve clinical outcomes or to provide economic benefit. More robust evidence is needed before programs of focused psychotropic medication review can be recommended as part of routine care for any patient group.

Indexed as

Drug Utilization ReviewPsychotropic DrugsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicPsychotropic Drugs

Identifiers

PMID30646263
PMCPMC6324597
OpenAlexW2900556666

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.