ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2023
Development of a Malaysian potentially inappropriate prescribing screening tool in older adults (MALPIP): a Delphi study.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Scoping Review on the Prevalence of Potentially Inappropriate Medication and Polypharmacy among Older People in a Lower-middle Income Country.JMA journal · 2025Review
- Factors influencing healthcare providers' behaviours in deprescribing: a cross-sectional study.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2024Article
- Comparing Beers, STOPP and MALPIP criteria in detecting potentially inappropriate medications, clinical outcomes, and cost impacts among older Malaysians: a cohort study.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2024Article
- Redefining polypharmacy: Shifting from drug counts to patient-centered clinical appropriateness.Perspectives in clinical researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPolypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) are common among older adults. To guide appropriate prescribing, healthcare professionals often rely on explicit criteria to identify and deprescribe inappropriate medications, or to start medications due to prescribing omission. However, most explicit PIM criteria were developed with inadequate guidance from quality metrics or integrating real-world data, which are rich and valuable data source.
aimTo develop a list of medications to facilitate appropriate prescribing among older adults.
methodsA preliminary list of PIM and potential prescribing omission (PPO) were generated from systematic review, supplemented with local pharmacovigilance data of adverse reaction incidents among older people. Twenty-one experts from nine specialties participated in two Delphi to determine the list of PIM and PPO in February and March 2023. Items that did not reach consensus after the second Delphi round were adjudicated by six geriatricians.
resultsThe preliminary list included 406 potential candidates, categorised into three sections: PIM independent of diseases, disease dependent PIM and omitted drugs that could be restarted. At the end of Delphi, 92 items were decided as PIM, including medication classes, such as antacids, laxatives, antithrombotics, antihypertensives, hormones, analgesics, antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antihistamines. Forty-two disease-specific PIM criteria were included, covering circulatory system, nervous system, gastrointestinal system, genitourinary system, and respiratory system. Consensus to start potentially omitted treatment was achieved in 35 statements across nine domains.
conclusionsThe newly developed PIM criteria can serve as a useful tool to guide clinicians and pharmacists in identifying PIMs and PPOs during medication review and facilitating informed decision-making for appropriate prescribing.
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.