Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31049205›Full record

ArticlePharmacology research & perspectives2019

Health professionals' and researchers' opinions on conducting clinical deprescribing trials.

Alexander J Clough, Sarah N Hilmer, Lisa Kouladjian-O'Donnell, Sharon L Naismith, Danijela Gnjidic

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacology research & perspectives, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Alexander J CloughSchool of Pharmacy University of Sydney Camperdown NSW Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9140-8412
Sarah N HilmerKolling Institute of Medical Research University of Sydney and Royal North Shore Hospital St Leonards NSW Australia.
Lisa Kouladjian-O'DonnellKolling Institute of Medical Research University of Sydney and Royal North Shore Hospital St Leonards NSW Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0927-7295
Sharon L NaismithBrain & Mind Centre University of Sydney Camperdown NSW Australia.
Danijela GnjidicSchool of Pharmacy University of Sydney Camperdown NSW Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While clinical deprescribing trials are increasingly being performed, there is no guidance on the optimum conduction of such studies. The aim of this survey was to explore the perspectives, attitudes, interests, barriers, and enablers of conducting clinical deprescribing trials among health professionals and researchers. An anonymous survey was developed, reviewed, and piloted by all investigators and informed by consultation with experts, as well as current deprescribing guidelines. The questions were formulated around current clinical trial frameworks and incorporated identified enablers and barriers of performing deprescribing studies. The survey was sent to members of Australian and international deprescribing, pharmacological, and pharmacy organizations, and other researchers published in deprescribing. A total of 96 respondents completed the survey (92.3% completion rate). Respondents indicated the main deprescribing trial rationale is to generate evidence to optimize patient-centered outcomes (79.2%). Common barriers identified included the time and effort required (18.2%), and apprehension of health professionals involved in trials (17.1%). Studies are enabled by positive attitudes toward deprescribing of treating prescribers (24.4%) and patients (20.9%). Classical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were deemed the most appropriate methodology (93.2%). Sixty percent of participants indicated a good clinical practice framework is required to guide the conduct of deprescribing trials. There were no significant differences in responses based on previous experience in conducting clinical deprescribing trials. In conclusion, clinical deprescribing trials should be conducted to investigate whether deprescribing medications improves patient care. A future deprescribing trial framework should use classical RCTs as a model, ensure participant safety, and target patient-centered outcomes.

Indexed as

DeprescriptionsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultControlled Clinical Trials as TopicCross-Sectional StudiesEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SafetyPractice Guidelines as TopicSurveys and Questionnairesclinical trialsmethodologyprescribingquality use of medicines

Identifiers

PMID31049205
PMCPMC6482940

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.