Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34729774›Full record

ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2022

An Interprofessional Student-Run Medication Review Program: The Clinical STOPP/START-Based Outcomes of a Controlled Clinical Trial in a Geriatric Outpatient Clinic.

Rowan Sultan, Tessa O van den Beukel, Michael O Reumerman, Hester E M Daelmans, Hans Springer, Els Grijmans, Majon Muller, Milan C Richir, Michiel A van Agtmael, Jelle Tichelaar

Open access · hybridAbstract readControlled Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rowan SultanDepartment of Internal Medicine section Pharmacotherapy, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tessa O van den BeukelDepartment of Internal Medicine section Pharmacotherapy, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Michael O ReumermanDepartment of Internal Medicine section Pharmacotherapy, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hester E M DaelmansSkills Training Department, Faculty of Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hans SpringerHogeschool Inholland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Els GrijmansHogeschool Inholland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Majon MullerDepartment of Internal Medicine section Geriatric Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Milan C RichirDepartment of Internal Medicine section Pharmacotherapy, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Michiel A van AgtmaelDepartment of Internal Medicine section Pharmacotherapy, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jelle TichelaarDepartment of Internal Medicine section Pharmacotherapy, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLInholland University of Applied Sciences · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the population ages, more people will have comorbid disorders and polypharmacy. Medication should be reviewed regularly in order to avoid adverse drug reactions and medication-related hospital visits, but this is often not done. As part of our student-run clinic project, we investigated whether an interprofessional student-run medication review program (ISP) added to standard care at a geriatric outpatient clinic leads to better prescribing. In this controlled clinical trial, patients visiting a memory outpatient clinic were allocated to standard care (control group) or standard care plus the ISP team (intervention group). The medications of all patients were reviewed by a review panel ("gold standard"), resident, and in the intervention arm also by an ISP team consisting of a group of students from the medicine and pharmacy faculties and students from the higher education school of nursing for advanced nursing practice. For both groups, the number of STOPP/START-based medication changes mentioned in general practitioner (GP) correspondence and the implementation of these changes about 6 weeks after the outpatient visit were investigated. The data of 216 patients were analyzed (control group = 100, intervention group = 116). More recommendations for STOPP/START-based medication changes were made in the GP correspondence in the intervention group than in the control group (43% vs. 24%, P = < 0.001). After 6 weeks, a significantly higher proportion of these changes were implemented in the intervention group (19% vs. 9%, P = 0.001). The ISP team, in addition to standard care, is an effective intervention for optimizing pharmacotherapy and medication safety in a geriatric outpatient clinic.

Indexed as

Medication ReviewPotentially Inappropriate Medication ListAgedAmbulatory Care FacilitiesHumansInappropriate PrescribingPolypharmacyStudents

Identifiers

PMID34729774
PMCPMC9299053
OpenAlexW3208673956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.