ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2025
Effects of children's criteria for identifying potentially inappropriate prescribing on prescription review by pharmacists: a before-after study.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe previously developed the children's potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) criteria to help detect and prevent inappropriate drug prescriptions in children.
aimTo evaluate the impact of implementing the children's PIP criteria on pharmacists' pediatric prescription review processes.
methodThe prospectively before-after study was conducted in tertiary hospitals across China. In the control phase, pharmacists reviewed prescriptions based on their clinical experience without the involvement of children's PIP criteria. In the intervention phase, they implemented the children's PIP criteria to assist their review. Primary outcomes included the number of identified PIP before and after implementing the criteria and pharmacists' acceptance of the criteria. Secondary outcomes included inter-pharmacist consistency and the median time spent reviewing each case.
resultsTwenty-one pharmacists reviewed 362 drug prescriptions of 24 patients in two phases. The number of identified PIP increased from 26 (7.2%) in the control phase to 90 (24.9%) in the intervention phase (P < 0.001). The Fleiss Kappa value of inter-pharmacist consistency was enhanced from 0.182 to 0.262 after implementing the PIP criteria. Of 362 prescriptions, 280 had consistent review results across both phases, while 82 showed a change. The children's PIP criteria helped reduce review time by 1-8 min per case, saving a total of 55 min (P < 0.001).
conclusionThe children's PIP criteria effectively assist pharmacists in identifying PIP during pediatric prescription review, improving inter-pharmacist consistency and reducing review time. These findings support broader adoption of the children's PIP criteria in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40418437What 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.