Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38789258›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2024

What do clinical practice guidelines say about deprescribing? A scoping review.

Aili Veronica Langford, Imaan Warriach, Aisling M McEvoy, Elisa Karaim, Shyleen Chand, Justin P Turner, Wade Thompson, Barbara J Farrell, Danielle Pollock, Frank Moriarty and 3 more

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

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

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

13 authors.

Aili Veronica LangfordCentre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Parkville, Victoria, Australia aili.langford@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0509-5136
Imaan WarriachCentre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Aisling M McEvoyCentre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Elisa KaraimCentre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Shyleen ChandCentre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Justin P TurnerCentre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0613-108X
Wade ThompsonDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology, and Therapeutics, The University of British Columbia Faculty of Medicine, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Barbara J FarrellBruyere Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2388-5353
Danielle PollockHealth Evidence Synthesis, Recommendations and Impact, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Frank MoriartySchool of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9838-3625
Danijela GnjidicThe University of Sydney School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Nagham J AilabouniThe Pharmacy Australian Centre of Excellence (PACE), The University of Queensland Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
Emily ReeveCentre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDeprescribing (

methodsBibliographic databases and Google were searched for guidelines published in English from January 2012 to November 2022. Guideline registries were searched from January 2017 to February 2023. Two reviewers independently screened records from databases and Google for guidelines containing one or more deprescribing recommendations. A 10% sample of the guideline registries was screened to identify eligible guidelines and estimate the proportion of guidelines containing a deprescribing recommendation. Guideline and recommendation characteristics were extracted and language features of deprescribing recommendations including content, form, complexity and readability were examined using a conventional content analysis and the SHeLL Health Literacy Editor tool.

results80 guidelines containing 316 deprescribing recommendations were included. Deprescribing recommendations had substantial variability in their format and terminology. Most guidelines contained recommendations regarding for

conclusionsDeprescribing recommendations are increasingly being incorporated into guidelines, however, many guidelines do not contain clear and actionable recommendations on TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: osf.io/fbex4.

Indexed as

DeprescriptionsPractice Guidelines as TopicHumansClinical pharmacologyClinical practice guidelinesDecision support, clinicalEvidence-based medicineMedication safety

Identifiers

PMID38789258
PMCPMC11672013

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.