ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2020
Development of a structured clinical pharmacology review for specialist support for management of complex polypharmacy in primary care.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Telepharmacological Consultation for Polypharmacy Management in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study of General Practitioners' Experiences With Cross-Sectoral Coordination.Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology · 2026Article
- Polypharmacy and unit dose dispensing system (UDDS) in geriatric care : Challenges from the perspective of healthcare staff.Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2026Article
- How do pharmacists navigate clinical uncertainty when reviewing polypharmacy? A critical literature review.BMC primary care · 2025Review
- Medication Use by Older Adults with Frailty: A Scoping Review.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Competing Benefits and Competing Hazards: The Benefit to Harm Balance in Individual Patients in Rational Therapeutics.Drug safety · 2024Article
- Uptake of pharmacist recommendations by patients after discharge: Implementation study of a patient-centered medicines review service.BMC geriatrics · 2023Article
- A qualitative exploration of the barriers and facilitators affecting ethnic minority patient groups when accessing medicine review services: Perspectives of healthcare professionals.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Development of a structured clinical pharmacology review for specialist support for management of complex polypharmacy in primary care.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.