Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32075833›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Evaluation of clarity of the STOPP/START criteria for clinical applicability in prescribing for older people: a quality appraisal study.

Bastiaan Theodoor Gerard Marie Sallevelt, Corlina Johanna Alida Huibers, Wilma Knol, Eugene van Puijenbroek, Toine Egberts, Ingeborg Wilting

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Bastiaan Theodoor Gerard Marie SalleveltClinical Pharmacy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands B.T.G.Sallevelt@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-4687-4048
Corlina Johanna Alida HuibersGeriatrics, Department of Geriatric Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Wilma KnolGeriatrics, Department of Geriatric Medicine and Expertise Centre Pharmacotherapy in Old Persons, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Eugene van PuijenbroekThe Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, Lareb, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Toine EgbertsClinical Pharmacy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ingeborg WiltingClinical Pharmacy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAppropriate prescribing in older people continues to be challenging. Studies still report a high prevalence of inappropriate prescribing in older people. To reduce the problem of underprescribing and overprescribing in this population, explicit drug optimisation tools like Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions/Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment (STOPP/START) have been developed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical applicability of STOPP/START criteria in daily patient care by assessing the clarity of singular criteria.

designQuality appraisal study.

methodsFor each of the 114 STOPP/START criteria V.2, elements describing the action ( PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: The primary outcome measure was the clarity rating per element, categorised into high (>67.7%), moderate (33.3%-67.7%) or low (<33.3%). Secondary, factors that positively or negatively affected clarity most were identified. Additionally, the nature of the conditions was further classified into five descriptive components: disease, sign, symptom, laboratory finding and medication.

resultsSTOPP recommendations had an average clarity rating of 64%, 60% and 69% for actions, conditions and explanations, respectively. The average clarity rating in START recommendations was 60% and 57% for actions and conditions, respectively. There were no statements present to substantiate the prescription of potential omissions for the 34 START criteria.

conclusionsOur results show that the clarity of the STOPP/START criteria can be improved. For future development of explicit drug optimisation tools, such as STOPP/START, our findings identified facilitators (high clarity) and barriers (low clarity) that can be used to improve the clarity of clinical practice guidelines on a language level and therefore enhance clinical applicability.

Indexed as

CommunicationDrug PrescriptionsPotentially Inappropriate Medication ListPractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'AgedAged, 80 and overDelivery of Health CareDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansInappropriate PrescribingLanguageMass ScreeningMultimorbidityPatient SafetyPolypharmacyclinical guidelinesdrug prescribinggeriatric medicinemedication safetypolypharmacy

Identifiers

PMID32075833
PMCPMC7045170
OpenAlexW3009006666

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.