Nashwa Masnoon1,2, Sepehr Shakib3,4, Lisa Kalisch-Ellett5, Gillian E Caughey5,3,4. 1. Quality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Frome Road, Adelaide, SA, Australia. Nashwa.Masnoon@mymail.unisa.edu.au. 2. Department of Pharmacy, Royal Adelaide Hospital, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, Australia. Nashwa.Masnoon@mymail.unisa.edu.au. 3. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, Australia. 4. Discipline of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, Australia. 5. Quality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Frome Road, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are tools and criteria in the literature aimed at distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate medicines use. However, many have not been externally validated with regard to patient-related outcomes, potentially limiting their use in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review to summarise (1) available prescribing appropriateness assessment tools and criteria, and (2) their associations with patient-related outcomes (external validity). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Informit (Health Collection) databases to screen for articles in English that examined (1) tools to assess the appropriateness of prescribing and (2) associations of tools with patient-related outcomes, published between 2000 and 2016, without any limits placed on the study design, participant age or setting. RESULTS: After screening 1710 articles, removing duplicates and shortlisting relevant articles, 42 prescribing assessment tools were identified. Out of the 42 tools, 78.6% (n = 33) provided guidance around stopping inappropriate medications, 28.6% (n = 12) around starting appropriate medications, 61.9% (n = 26) were explicit (criteria based) and 31.0% (n = 13) had been externally validated, with hospitalisation being the most commonly used patient-related outcome (n = 9, 21.4%). CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review highlight the need for evidence-based and externally validated tools, which combine the different aspects of medication management to optimise patient-related outcomes. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017067233.
BACKGROUND: There are tools and criteria in the literature aimed at distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate medicines use. However, many have not been externally validated with regard to patient-related outcomes, potentially limiting their use in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review to summarise (1) available prescribing appropriateness assessment tools and criteria, and (2) their associations with patient-related outcomes (external validity). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Informit (Health Collection) databases to screen for articles in English that examined (1) tools to assess the appropriateness of prescribing and (2) associations of tools with patient-related outcomes, published between 2000 and 2016, without any limits placed on the study design, participant age or setting. RESULTS: After screening 1710 articles, removing duplicates and shortlisting relevant articles, 42 prescribing assessment tools were identified. Out of the 42 tools, 78.6% (n = 33) provided guidance around stopping inappropriate medications, 28.6% (n = 12) around starting appropriate medications, 61.9% (n = 26) were explicit (criteria based) and 31.0% (n = 13) had been externally validated, with hospitalisation being the most commonly used patient-related outcome (n = 9, 21.4%). CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review highlight the need for evidence-based and externally validated tools, which combine the different aspects of medication management to optimise patient-related outcomes. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017067233.
Authors: Nicholas M Wilson; Sarah N Hilmer; Lyn M March; Jian Sheng Chen; Danijela Gnjidic; Rebecca S Mason; Ian D Cameron; Philip N Sambrook Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Danijela Gnjidic; Sarah N Hilmer; Fiona M Blyth; Vasi Naganathan; Louise Waite; Markus J Seibel; Andrew J McLachlan; Robert G Cumming; David J Handelsman; David G Le Couteur Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2012-06-27 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: D Gnjidic; S N Hilmer; F M Blyth; V Naganathan; R G Cumming; D J Handelsman; A J McLachlan; D R Abernethy; E Banks; D G Le Couteur Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Marie-Laure Laroche; Thi Hong Van Ngo; Caroline Sirois; Amélie Daveluy; Michel Guillaumin; Marie-Blanche Valnet-Rabier; Muriel Grau; Barbara Roux; Louis Merle Journal: Eur Geriatr Med Date: 2021-03-20 Impact factor: 1.710
Authors: Huanyu Zhang; Eliza L Y Wong; Samuel Y S Wong; Patsy Y K Chau; Benjamin H K Yip; Roger Y N Chung; Eric K P Lee; Francisco T T Lai; Eng-Kiong Yeoh Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Patricia Amoros-Reboredo; Dolors Soy; Marta Hernandez-Hernandez; Sabela Lens; Conxita Mestres Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Marci Elizabeth Dearing; Susan Bowles; Jennifer Isenor; Olga Kits; Lisa Kouladjian O'Donnell; Heather Neville; Sarah Hilmer; Kent Toombs; Caroline Sirois; Mohammad Hajizadeh; Aprill Negus; Kenneth Rockwood; Emily Reeve Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 2.692