ArticlePloS one2020
Development and validation of medication assessment tools to evaluate prescribing adherence to evidence-based guidelines for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in post-acute coronary syndromes patients in Kuwait.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular diseases are estimated to cause 46% of all mortalities in Kuwait. The aim of evidence-based clinical practice has led to an increased interest in the design of medication assessment tools (MATs) to identify deviations from evidence-based practice, and eventually provide the basis of consistent standardized prescribing. This study was designed to develop and validate MATs using quality standards extracted from international guidelines to evaluate prescribing practices in secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in patients with post-acute coronary syndrome (STEMI or NSTEACS]. International guidelines were reviewed to develop two MATs (MATSTEMI and MATNSTEACS). Face and content validity of the developed tools was performed with three MAT experts and thirteen cardiologists. Two quantitative approaches were used to determine content validity: (i) Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and the average of CVR values; and (ii) Content validity index at item level (I-CVI) and scale-level of the tool (S-CVI/Ave) with the average approach. Criteria with a CVR<0.54 and I-CVI <70% were eliminated. Ultimately, feasibility testing of both MATs was performed on 66 patients' records as a pilot study. The initial developed MATSTEMI and MATNSTEACS consisted of eighteen and twelve medication-related criteria, respectively. Face validity resulted in dividing each MAT into five dimensions. In the MATSTEMI, three criteria had CVR values < 0.54 and I-CVIs < 70%. Two criteria were eliminated and one was retained. This resulted in sixteen criteria with average CVR 0.85 and S-CVI/Ave 92.3%. In the MATNSTEACS, one criterion was eliminated. This resulted in eleven criteria with average CVR 0.93 and S-CVI/Ave 96.5%. The overall adherence scores to the MATSTEMI and MATNSTEACS were 64.1% (95% CI: 57.8-69.9%) and 62.0% (95% CI: 53.4-69.9%), respectively. It was judged as intermediate adherence for both MATs. MATSTEMI and MATNSTEACS were developed and validated to be utilized for optimizing medication therapy management and improving therapeutic interventions.
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.