Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34115158›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2021

REview of potentially inappropriate MEDIcation pr[e]scribing in Seniors (REMEDI[e]S): French implicit and explicit criteria.

Barbara Roux, Julie Berthou-Contreras, Jean-Baptiste Beuscart, Marion Charenton-Blavignac, Jean Doucet, Jean-Pascal Fournier, Blandine de la Gastine, Sophie Gautier, Régis Gonthier, Valérie Gras and 7 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. 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

17 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.

Barbara RouxCentre of Pharmacovigilance and Pharmacoepidemiology, Department of Pharmacology Toxicology and Centre of Pharmacovigilance, University Hospital of Limoges, Limoges, France. rouxbarbara91@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0303-1246
Julie Berthou-ContrerasDepartment of Pharmacy, Clinical Pharmacy Unit, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France.
Jean-Baptiste BeuscartUniv. Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 2694 - METRICS: Evaluation des technologies de santé et des pratiques médicales, F-59000, Lille, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0734-8371
Marion Charenton-BlavignacDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Hospital Center of La Rochelle-Ré-Aunis, La Rochelle, France.
Jean DoucetDepartment of Internal Medicine, Geriatrics and Therapeutics, Saint Julien Hospital, Rouen University Hospital, 76031, Rouen Cedex, France.
Jean-Pascal FournierDepartment of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine, University of Nantes, Nantes, France.
Blandine de la GastineGeriatric Department, Institut du Vieillissement, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Pierre Garraud, Lyon, France.
Sophie GautierCentre of Pharmacovigilance and Pharmacoepidemiology, Department of Medical Pharmacology, University Hospital of Lille, Lille, France.
Régis GonthierDépartement de Gérontologie Clinique, CHU de Saint Etienne, Hôpital de La Charité, 44 rue Pointe Cadet, 42000, Saint-Etienne, France.
Valérie GrasCentre of Pharmacovigilance, Department of Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospital of Amiens, Amiens, France.
Muriel GrauCentre of Pharmacovigilance and Pharmacoepidemiology, Department of Pharmacology Toxicology and Centre of Pharmacovigilance, University Hospital of Limoges, Limoges, France.
Pernelle NoizeDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospital of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5617-7954
Elisabeth PolardCentre of Pharmacovigilance and Pharmacoepidemiology, Department of Medical Pharmacology, University Hospital of Rennes, Rennes, France.
Karen RudelleUniversity Department of General Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Limoges, France.
Marie-Blanche Valnet-RabierCentre of Pharmacovigilance and Pharmacoepidemiology, Department of Medical Pharmacology, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France.
Thomas TannouGeriatric Departement, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3476-9822
Marie-Laure LarocheCentre of Pharmacovigilance and Pharmacoepidemiology, Department of Pharmacology Toxicology and Centre of Pharmacovigilance, University Hospital of Limoges, Limoges, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4344-0359
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Besançon · FRInserm · FRUniversité de Lille · FRUniversité de Limoges · FRCentre Hospitalier de La Rochelle · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Amiens-Picardie · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes · FRHôpital Saint-Julien · FRHospices Civils de Lyon · FRNantes Université · FRUniversité de Bordeaux · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo establish a consensus on both explicit and implicit criteria in order to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in French older people aged 75 years and over or 65 years and over with multimorbidity.

methodsFifteen experts in geriatrics, general practice, pharmacy, and clinical pharmacology were involved in a two-round Delphi survey to assess preliminary explicit and implicit criteria based on an extensive literature review and up-to-date evidence data. Experts were asked to rate their level of agreement using a 5-level Likert scale for inclusion of criteria and also for rationale and therapeutic alternatives. A consensus was considered as reached if at least 75% of the experts rated criteria as "strongly agreed" or "agreed."

resultsThe new tool included a seven-step algorithm (implicit criteria) encompassing the three main domains that define PIP (i.e. overprescribing, underprescribing, and misprescribing) and 104 explicit criteria. Explicit criteria were divided into 6 tables related to inappropriate drug duplications (n = 7 criteria), omissions of medications and/or medication associations (n = 16), medications with an unfavourable benefit/risk ratio and/or a questionable efficacy (n = 39), medications with an unsuitable dose (n = 4) or duration (n = 6), drug-disease (n = 13), and drug-drug interactions (n = 19).

conclusionThe REMEDI[e]S tool (REview of potentially inappropriate MEDIcation pr[e]scribing in Seniors) is an original mixed tool, adapted to French medical practices, aimed at preventing PIP both at the individual level in clinical practice and the population level in large-scale studies. Therefore, its use could contribute to an improvement in healthcare professionals' prescribing practices and safer care in older adults.

Indexed as

Delphi TechniqueAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsAlgorithmsFemaleFranceGeriatricsHumansInappropriate PrescribingMaleMiddle AgedMultimorbidityPotentially Inappropriate Medication ListPractice Patterns, Physicians'Delphi methodExplicit criteriaFranceImplicit criteriaInappropriate prescribingOlder adults

Identifiers

PMID34115158
OpenAlexW3172097521

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.