ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2023
Comparison of prioritisation algorithms for the selection of patients for medication reviews in the emergency department: a cross-sectional study.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2023. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRisk prioritisation algorithms provide patients with a risk category that guides pharmacists to choose those needing medication reviews (MRs) the most. For this study the Medicine Risk Score (MERIS) and a modified Assessment of Risk Tool (ART) were used.
aimTo examine how the selection of patients by the clinical pharmacists in an emergency department for MRs compared with the categorisation provided by MERIS and a modified version of ART (mART). Furthermore, examine the agreement between MERIS and mART.
methodA cross-sectional study was conducted using data on all admitted patients during a two-month period. Data were entered into the prioritisation algorithms and independently ranked by the six pharmacists who were observed as they selected patients for MR. Risk scores and categorisations were compared between the algorithms and the pharmacists' ranking using t-test, Z-test, Chi square, Kruskal Wallis H-test, or Kappa statistics.
resultsThe study included 1133 patients. Significant differences were found between the pharmacists and the algorithms. The sensitivity and specificity of MERIS were 37.8% and 73.6%, for mART, 33.0% and 75.9%. Kappa was 0.58, showing moderate agreement. No significant differences were observed between the individual pharmacists' selection, but differences were significant between how pharmacists ranked the importance of the provided MRs.
conclusionPharmacists disagreed with the risk categorisation provided by MERIS and mART. However, MERIS and mART had similar sensitivity, specificity, and moderate agreement. Further research should focus on how clinical algorithms affect the selection of patients and on the importance of the MRs carried out by pharmacists.
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.