Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33017423›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

International consensus validation of the POPI tool (Pediatrics: Omission of Prescriptions and Inappropriate prescriptions) to identify inappropriate prescribing in pediatrics.

Laily Sadozai, Shaya Sable, Enora Le Roux, Pierre Coste, Clémence Guillot, Priscilla Boizeau, Aurore Berthe-Aucejo, François Angoulvant, Mathie Lorrot, Olivier Bourdon and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Laily SadozaiPharmacy Department, Robert-Debré Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-6844-4503
Shaya SablePharmacy Department, Robert-Debré Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France.
Enora Le RouxUnité d'épidémiologie clinique, Hôpital Universitaire Robert Debré, AP-HP.Nord-Université de Paris, Inserm, CIC 1426, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-2238-7133
Pierre CosteUnité d'épidémiologie clinique, Hôpital Universitaire Robert Debré, AP-HP.Nord-Université de Paris, Inserm, CIC 1426, Paris, France.
Clémence GuillotPharmacy Department, Robert-Debré Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France.
Priscilla BoizeauUnité d'épidémiologie clinique, Hôpital Universitaire Robert Debré, AP-HP.Nord-Université de Paris, Inserm, CIC 1426, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-4573-4617
Aurore Berthe-AucejoPharmacy Department, Robert-Debré Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-9457-6996
François AngoulvantNecker Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France.
Mathie LorrotTrousseau Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France.
Olivier BourdonPharmacy Department, Robert-Debré Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France.
Sonia Prot-LabarthePharmacy Department, Robert-Debré Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France.
Inserm · FRAssistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FRDélégation Paris 5 · FRHôpital Necker-Enfants Malades · FRSorbonne Université · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWhile drug prescription should be based on established recommendations stemming from clinical trials but in pediatrics, many drugs are used without marketing authorization. Consequently recommendations are often based on clinical experience and the risk of inappropriate prescription (IP) is high. A tool for detecting IP in pediatrics-called POPI (Pediatrics: Omission of Prescriptions and Inappropriate prescriptions)-has been developed in France. However the relevance of its use at an international level is not known. Our aim has been to adapt POPI for a worldwide use. MATERIAL AND

methodA two-round Delphi online questionnaire was completed and validated by international experts to identify consensual items. They were asked to rate the validity of each items taking into account the recommendations and practices in their countries. Only propositions obtaining a median score in the upper tertile with an agreement of more than 75% of the panel-for the first round-and 85%-for the second round-were retained.

resultsOur panel included 11 pharmacists (55%) and 9 physicians (45%). The panelists came from 12 different countries: England, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ivory Coast, Ireland, Malaysia, Portugal, Switzerland, Turkey and Vietnam. At the end of the first round, of the 105 items of the original POPI tool, 80 items were retained including 16 items reworded and 25 items were deleted. In the second round, 14 experts participated in the study. This final international POPI tool is composed of 73 IP and omissions of prescriptions in the fields of neuropsychiatry, dermatology, infectiology, pneumology, gastroenterology, pain and fever. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionThis study highlights international consensus on prescription practice in pediatrics. The use of this tool in everyday practice could reduce the risk of inappropriate prescription. The impact of the diffusion of POPI tool will be assessed in a prospective multicentric study.

Indexed as

Inappropriate PrescribingPediatricsAdultChildDelphi TechniqueDrug PrescriptionsFranceHumansMiddle AgedPharmacistsPhysicians

Identifiers

PMID33017423
PMCPMC7535059
OpenAlexW3091524277

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.