ArticleBMJ open2020
TOP-ID: a Delphi technique-guided development of a prescription and deprescription tool for adults with intellectual disabilities.
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Antipsychotic medication for behaviors that challenge in individuals with intellectual disabilities: a clinically informed review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- A protocol for application of OPTIMA-ID to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing in a cohort of older adults with intellectual disability.HRB open research · 2026Article
- Factors supporting optimisation of psychotropic deprescribing in people with intellectual disabilities within the UK: a modified Delphi study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Developing and testing of an assessment tool for appropriate psychotropic drug prescribing in people with intellectual disabilities.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAdults with an intellectual disability (AWID) are often polymedicated because of somatic and psychiatric health problems. Besides, they may display challenging behaviours, leading to off-label prescription of psychotropic drugs, without efficacy and with numerous adverse effects. In this context, a prescription/deprescription tool (Tool for Optimising Prescription in Intellectual Disability/TOP-ID) was developed to improve the care of AWID. This paper describes how TOP-ID was designed.
designFour-step consensus-based process involving a review of the literature, eight semistructured interviews and a two-round Delphi process.
settingSeventeen general practices and university and general hospitals from Belgium, France and Switzerland.
participantsEighteen French-speaking physicians from different domains of expertise participated in the Delphi process. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: For the Delphi iteration process, consensus was defined as at least a 65% agreement between the experts.
resultsTwo rounds were needed for the Delphi process. Eighty-one items of the tool were submitted to 18 out of 35 recruited French-speaking experts during the first round. Sixty-nine per cent of the items reached a rate of agreement of 65% or more in that round. Thirteen questions were reformulated and resubmitted for the second Delphi iteration round. All of the statements reached a rate of agreement of 65% or more in the second round.
conclusionTOP-ID is the first prescription-deprescription tool developed specifically for AWIDs in French. It is intended to help prescribers document patient care in order to reduce prescription errors and to improve safety. The next steps of the project include the development of an electronic version of TOP-ID and a utility study.
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.