Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32058606›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2020

Development of a structured clinical pharmacology review for specialist support for management of complex polypharmacy in primary care.

Christopher J D Threapleton, James E Kimpton, Iain M Carey, Stephen DeWilde, Derek G Cook, Tess Harris, Emma H Baker

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British 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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Christopher J D ThreapletonClinical Pharmacology, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8281-6964
James E KimptonClinical Pharmacology, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Iain M CareyPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, UK.
Stephen DeWildePopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, UK.
Derek G CookPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, UK.
Tess HarrisPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, UK.
Emma H BakerClinical Pharmacology, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
St George's, University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsPolypharmacy is widespread and associated with medication-related harms, including adverse drug reactions, medication errors and poor treatment adherence. General practitioners and pharmacists cite limited time and training to perform effective medication reviews for patients with complex polypharmacy, yet no specialist referral mechanism exists. To develop a structured framework for specialist review of primary care patients with complex polypharmacy.

methodsWe developed the clinical pharmacology structured review (CPSR) and stopping by indication tool (SBIT). We tested these in an age-sex stratified sample of 100 people with polypharmacy aged 65-84 years from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, an anonymised primary care database. Simulated medication reviews based on electronic records using the CPSR and SBIT were performed. We recommended medication changes or review to optimise treatment benefits, reduce risk of harm or reduce treatment burden.

resultsRecommendations were made for all patients, for almost half (4.8 ± 2.4) of existing medicines (9.8 ± 3.1), most commonly stopping a drug (1.7 ± 1.3/patient) or reviewing with the patient (1.4 ± 1.2/patient). At least 1 new medicine (0.7 ± 0.9) was recommended for 51% patients. Recommendations predominantly aimed to reduce harm (44%). There was no relationship between number of recommendations made and time since last primary care medication review. We identified a core set of clinical information and investigations (polypharmacy workup) that could inform a standard screen prior to specialist review.

conclusionThe CPSR, SBIT and polypharmacy workup could form the basis of a specialist review for patients with complex polypharmacy. Further research is needed to test this approach in patients in general practice.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsPharmacology, ClinicalAgedAged, 80 and overHumansPharmacistsPolypharmacyPrimary Health Careclinical pharmacologydrug utilizationfrailtylong-term conditionsmedication reviewprescribingprimary carequality use of medicines

Identifiers

PMID32058606
PMCPMC7319011
OpenAlexW3006572514

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.