ArticleEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2018
Pharmacist comprehensive review of treatment compared with STOPP-START criteria to detect potentially inappropriate prescription in older complex patients.
Article in European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multidisciplinary medication review during older patient hospitalization according to STOPP/START criteria reduces potentially inappropriate prescriptions: MoPIM cohort study.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Article
- Improving Pharmacists' Targeting of Patients for Medication Review and Deprescription.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) according to the clinical judgement of the pharmacist with PIP according to explicit STOPP-START criteria in institutionalised and hospitalised patients with multiple pathologies. To describe and compare the main pharmacological groups involved and determine the factors associated with the detection of PIP in these patients.
methodA prospective multicentre observational study of institutionalised and hospitalised multipathology patients aged >65 years. A specialised pharmacist used his best clinical judgement to detect PIP based on a comprehensive review of the complete chronic treatment of patients, which is an essential activity in interdisciplinary care. STOPP-START criteria were used as an aid tool to detect PIP. The main variable was the number of PIP incidents detected.
resultsDetected PIP incidents were analysed in 338 patients. Clinical judgement detected more PIP incidents (35%) than did STOPP-START criteria. More PIP incidents unrelated to these criteria were detected in institutionalised patients than in hospitalised patients. Clinical judgement mainly detected PIP incidents related to incorrect doses and drug interactions (p<0.001); however, STOPP-START criteria mainly detected PIP incidents related to drug duplication and insufficiently treated diagnosis or symptoms (p=0.001 and p<0.001). In total, 93.8% of the PIP incidents were detected in polypharmacy patients (≥5 drugs). Institutionalised and high-level polypharmacy (≥10 drugs) patients were at the highest risk of PIP.
conclusionsA large number of PIP incidents were detected in institutionalised and hospitalised patients with multiple pathologies. The inclusion of a pharmacist in the multidisciplinary team facilitated the detection of PIP incidents, particularly in the institutionalised population and patients treated with high-level polypharmacy which were not detected by explicit STOPP-START criteria.
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.