Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31822957›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2020

Comparison of drug-related problem risk assessment tools for older adults: a systematic review.

Emmi Puumalainen, Marja Airaksinen, Sanni E Jalava, Timothy F Chen, Maarit Dimitrow

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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.

Emmi PuumalainenFaculty of Pharmacy, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. emmi.puumalainen@helsinki.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7741-0890
Marja AiraksinenFaculty of Pharmacy, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Sanni E JalavaFaculty of Pharmacy, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Timothy F ChenFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Maarit DimitrowFaculty of Pharmacy, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aims to systematically review studies describing screening tools that assess the risk for drug-related problems (DRPs) in older adults (≥ 60 years). The focus of the review is to compare DRP risks listed in different tools and describe their development methods and validation.

methodsThe systematic search was conducted using evidence-based medicine, Medline Ovid, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from January 1, 1985, to April 7, 2016. Publications describing general DRP risk assessment tools for older adults written in English were included. Disease, therapy, and drug-specific tools were excluded. Outcome measures included an assessment tool's content, development methods, and validation assessment.

resultsThe search produced 15 publications describing 11 DRP risk assessment tools. Three major categories of risks for DRPs included (1) patient or caregiver related risks; (2) pharmacotherapy-related risks; and (3) medication use process-related risks. Of all the risks included in the tools only 8 criteria appeared in at least 4 of the tools, problems remembering to take the medication being the most common (n=7). Validation assessments varied and content validation was the most commonly conducted (n = 9). Reliability assessment was conducted for 6 tools, most commonly by calculating internal consistency (n = 3) and inter-rater reliability (n = 2).

conclusionsThe considerable variety between the contents of the tools indicates that there is no consensus on the risk factors for DRPs that should be screened in older adults taking multiple medicines. Further research is needed to improve the accuracy and timeliness of the DRP risk assessment tools.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsAgedHumansReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsDrug-related problemGeriatricsMass screeningPRISMA statementRisk assessmentRisk management

Identifiers

PMID31822957

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.