Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34489296›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Deprescribing intervention activities mapped to guiding principles for use in general practice: a scoping review.

Amy Coe, Catherine Kaylor-Hughes, Susan Fletcher, Elizabeth Murray, Jane Gunn

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

5 authors.

Amy CoeDepartment of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia amy.coe@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-3723-7645
Catherine Kaylor-HughesDepartment of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3353-4108
Susan FletcherDepartment of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6359-8650
Elizabeth MurrayPrimary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8932-3695
Jane GunnDepartment of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8836-7525

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify and characterise activities for deprescribing used in general practice and to map the identified activities to pioneering principles of deprescribing.

settingPrimary care. DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), Clinicaltrials.gov, ISRCTN registry, OpenGrey, STUDY SELECTION: Included studies were original research (randomised controlled trial, quasi-experimental, cohort study, qualitative and case studies), protocol papers and protocol registrations. DATA EXTRACTION: Screening and data extraction was completed by one reviewer; 10% of the studies were independently reviewed by a second reviewer. Coding of full-text articles in NVivo was conducted and mapped to five deprescribing principles.

resultsFifty studies were included. The most frequently used activities were identification of appropriate patients for deprescribing (76%), patient education (50%), general practitioners (GP) education (48%), and development and use of a tapering schedule (38%). Six activities did not align with the five deprescribing principles. As such, two principles (engage practice staff in education and appropriate identification of patients, and provide feedback to staff about deprescribing occurrences within the practice) were added.

conclusionActivities and guiding principles for deprescribing should be paired together to provide an accessible and comprehensive guide to deprescribing by GPs. The addition of two principles suggests that practice staff and practice management teams may play an instrumental role in sustaining deprescribing processes within clinical practice. Future research is required to determine the most of effective activities to use within each principle and by whom.

Indexed as

DeprescriptionsGeneral PractitionersAustraliaCohort StudiesFamily PracticeHumansclinical pharmacologyprimary careprotocols & guidelines

Identifiers

PMID34489296
PMCPMC8422486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.