Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31093941›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2019

External validation of a clinical pharmacy intervention in geriatric inpatients: a controlled study.

Lorenz Van der Linden, Liesbeth Decoutere, Leen Beerten, Toon Delva, Isabel Spriet, Johan Flamaing, Jos Tournoy

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyControlled Clinical TrialValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 50% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lorenz Van der LindenPharmacy Department, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Louvain, Belgium. lorenz.vanderlinden@uzleuven.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5195-1891
Liesbeth DecouterePharmacy Department, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium.
Leen BeertenPharmacy Department, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium.
Toon DelvaDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium.
Isabel SprietPharmacy Department, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Louvain, Belgium.
Johan FlamaingDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Louvain, Belgium.
Jos TournoyDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Louvain, Belgium.
KU Leuven · BEJessa Hospital · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Clinical pharmacist interventions have been shown to improve drug use in older adults. Study findings are seldom externally validated however. Objective First, to validate a minimized iteration of a previously tested intervention of clinical pharmacists in a non-academic setting with limited staffing resources. Second, to compare the potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) reduction to two previous controlled interventional studies. Methods A controlled study was performed at geriatric wards. The control group received usual care. The intervention group was exposed to a clinical pharmacist led medication review, based on the use of the RASP list, (the Rationalization of Home Medication by an Adjusted STOPP list in Older Patients). Drug use on admission and at discharge were evaluated, including the number of RASP-identified potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). The PIM reduction was compared to two previous controlled study findings using a linear mixed model. Results Drug use declined during hospital stay, without differences between control (n = 29) and intervention group (n = 32). Antidepressants and hypnotic drugs were discontinued more frequently in IG patients. More PIMs were reduced in the intervention patients (control vs. intervention: 1.0 vs. 3.0, p < 0.001). Across three controlled studies, a robust reduction of 1.56 PIMs (95% confidence interval 1.10-2.02, p < 0.001) was observed in favor of the CP interventions. Conclusion The minimal CP intervention resulted in fewer RASP PIMs. No net reduction of drug use was observed, yet fewer antidepressants and hypnotic drugs were used. The RASP PIM reduction was comparable to previous investigations.

Indexed as

Pharmacy Service, HospitalAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMedication ReconciliationPotentially Inappropriate Medication ListBelgiumClinical pharmacyExternal validationMinimal interventionOlder inpatientsPolypharmacyPotentially inappropriate medication

Identifiers

PMID31093941
OpenAlexW2945983989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.