ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2019
Interrater reliability of a tool to assess omission of prescription and inappropriate prescriptions in paediatrics.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tools for Identifying Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions for Children and Their Applicability in Clinical Practices: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Paediatric Rational Prescribing: A Systematic Review of Assessment Tools.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled 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 tool for screening potentially inappropriate prescribing in Chinese children.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) and potential prescription omission (PPO) are common issues in pharmacotherapy in vulnerable populations. A first tool to assess PIM's and PPO's targeting pediatric populations: POPI «Pediatrics Omission of Prescriptions and Inappropriate Prescriptions» was created in 2014. Objective This study aimed to evaluate inter-rater reliability between healthcare professionals who apply POPI. Setting: Mother and child emergency ward of a university hospital. Method Twenty cases with or without PIM or PPO were identified in a previous retrospective PIM-PPO prevalence study on 15,973 patients. One doctor and one pharmacist, who participated in the creation of POPI tool, identified PIM and PPO ("gold standard response"). These cases were reviewed independently by eleven clinicians (generalists, pediatricians, pharmacists, residents), with no previous experience of this tool. Interrater agreement was calculated by using the Kappa agreement test. Main outcome measure: Inter-clinician agreement. Results A high level of agreement of PIM and PPO detection was recorded (PIM: median = 0.80; PPO: median = 0.71). Conclusion POPI demonstrated a good interrater reliability. This validation by many clinicians proves that POPI is a reliable tool. Other multicenter and prospective studies should be conducted to evaluate economical and clinical impacts of POPI.
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.