ArticleIntegrated pharmacy research & practice2021
Expert Consensus on a List of Inappropriate Prescribing after Prescription Review in Pediatric Units in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire.
Article in Integrated pharmacy research & practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInappropriate prescribing (IP) includes inappropriate prescription and omission of prescription. IP can adversely affect the quality of health care in pediatric units. A list of IP taking into account frequently encountered drug-related problems (DRPs) can be useful to optimize prescriptions in pediatrics. The aim of this study was to validate by expert consensus a list of IP after a prescription review in pediatric units in Abidjan. MATERIALS AND
methodsA list of IPs was developed from a prescription review of inpatients and outpatients aged 1 month to 15 years and followed in pediatric units at teaching hospitals of Abidjan during 16 months. A two-round Delphi method was used to validate a qualitative list of IPs by experts according to their level of agreement on a six-point Likert scale of 0-5 (0, no opinion; 5, strongly agree). Only propositions obtaining the agreement (rating 4 or 5) of >70% of experts who gave a non-zero rating for the first round and 80% for the second round were retained.
resultsA qualitative list of 54 IPs was drawn up from 267 DRPs detected after prescription review of 4,992 prescription lines for 881 patients. Our panel comprised 22 pediatricians (96%) and one clinical pharmacist (4%). Mean agreement ratings were 4.43/5 (95% CI 4.39-4.48) and 4.6/5 (95% CI 4.56-4.64), respectively, during the first Delphi round and the second (
conclusionThe list of IP validated in this study should help in the detection of DRPs and optimize prescriptions in pediatric units in Côte d'Ivoire.
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.