ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2019
Modifying a Paediatric Rational Prescribing Tool (POPI) for Use in the UK.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Tools for Identifying Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions for Children and Their Applicability in Clinical Practices: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Effects of children's criteria for identifying potentially inappropriate prescribing on prescription review by pharmacists: a before-after study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- A survey on the attitudes of pediatric residents toward rational use of medicines and associated factors in Izmir, Turkey.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- A tool for screening potentially inappropriate prescribing in Chinese children.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Evaluation of rational prescribing in paediatrics.BMJ paediatrics open · 2021Article
- Expert Consensus on a List of Inappropriate Prescribing after Prescription Review in Pediatric Units in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire.Integrated pharmacy research & practice · 2021Article
- Article
- Antibiotic prescription in the outpatient paediatric population attending emergency departments in Lombardy, Italy: a retrospective database review.BMJ paediatrics open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rational prescribing tools can be used by individual prescribers, organisations, and researchers to evaluate the quality of prescribing for research and quality improvement purposes. A literature search showed that there is only one tool for evaluating rational prescribing for paediatric patients in hospital and outpatient settings. The Pediatrics: Omission of Prescriptions and Inappropriate Prescriptions (POPI) tool was developed in France and comprises 105 criteria. The aim of this study was to modify this tool to facilitate its use in paediatric practice in the United Kingdom (UK). POPI criteria were compared to relevant UK clinical guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network and the British National Formulary for Children. Where guidelines differed, criteria were modified to reflect UK guidance. If there were no relevant guidelines or directly contradictory guidelines, criteria were removed. Overall, no change was made to 49 criteria. There were 29 modified to concord with UK guidelines. Four criteria were reduced to two criteria due to being linked in single guidelines. Twenty-three criteria were omitted, due to the absence of relevant UK guidance or directly conflicting UK practice, including one entire clinical category (mosquitos). One category title was amended to parallel UK terminology. The modified POPI (UK) tool comprises of eighty criteria and is the first rational prescribing tool for the evaluation of prescribing for children in hospital and outpatient settings in the UK.
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.