Validation of the Arabic Version of Medication Regimen Complexity Index Among Older Patients - Validation of the “MRCI-Arabic”

The medication regimen complexity index is widely used in clinical practice and many studies, to assess the complexity of medication regimens. The goal of this study is to validate the medication regimen complexity index-Arabic (MRCI-Arabic) version among older patients. Methods: This methodologic study was conducted in older patients (≥ 65 years old) who were native Arabic speakers at a community pharmacy located in Istanbul, Turkey. After the translation and cultural adaptation process finished, medication regimens of 30 patients were evaluated for test-retest reliability three weeks apart by the rater who was a native Arabic speaker. The inter-rater correlation was calculated in study population (n =100). The link between the number of medications and the score of medication regimen complexity was used to assess convergent validity. The difference in the score of pharmaceutical regimen complexity in stratified age groups was used to examine discriminant validity. Results: The inter-rater and test-retest reliability of the MRCI-Arabic total scale and its subsection were extremely high (Spearman’s rho ranged from 0.996 to 1; p <0.001). There was a strong and positive correlation between the total MRCI-Arabic score and the number of medications (r = 0.830; p < 0.001), the number of chronic diseases (r = 0.641; p < 0.001). Conclusion: The Arabic validation of the MRCI is a validated tool that can be used by native Arabic-speaking healthcare professionals to determine the complexity of their patients’ medication regimens

Author Correction: Prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in older adults in Central and Eastern Europe: a systematic review and synthesis without meta‑analysis

Link to the corrected article: [https://farfar.pharmacy.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/4286

Prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in older adults in Central and Eastern Europe: a systematic review and synthesis without meta-analysis

We aimed to systematically review the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in older adults in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) in all care settings. We searched Embase and MEDLINE (up to June 2019) and checked the reference lists of the included studies and relevant reviews. Eligible studies used validated explicit or implicit tools to assess the PIP prevalence in older adults in CEE. All study designs were considered, except case‒control studies and case series. We assessed the risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis was inappropriate due to heterogeneity in the outcome measurements. Therefore, we used the synthesis without meta-analysis approach—summarizing effect estimates method. This review included twenty-seven studies with 139,693 participants. Most studies were cross-sectional and conducted in high-income countries. The data synthesis across 26 studies revealed the PIP prevalence: the median was 34.6%, the interquartile range was 25.9–63.2%, and the range was 6.5–95.8%. The certainty of this evidence was very low due to the risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. These findings show that PIP is a prevalent issue in the CEE region. Further well-designed studies conducted across countries are needed to strengthen the existing evidence and increase the generalizability of findings

How to write a successful grant application: guidance provided by the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy.

Considering a rejection rate of 80–90%, the preparation of a research grant is often considered a daunting task since it is resource intensive and there is no guarantee of success, even for seasoned researchers. This commentary provides a summary of the key points a researcher needs to consider when writing a research grant proposal, outlining: (1) how to conceptualise the research idea; (2) how to find the right funding call; (3) the importance of planning; (4) how to write; (5) what to write, and (6) key questions for reflection during preparation. It attempts to explain the difficulties associated with finding calls in clinical pharmacy and advanced pharmacy practice, and how to overcome them. The commentary aims to assist all pharmacy practice and health services research colleagues new to the grant application process, as well as experienced researchers striving to improve their grant review scores. The guidance in this paper is part of ESCP’s commitment to stimulate "innovative and high-quality research in all areas of clinical pharmacy"

Writing a manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal:Guidance from the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy

Publishing in reputable peer-reviewed journals is an integral step of the clinical pharmacy research process, allowing for knowledge transfer and advancement in clinical pharmacy practice. Writing a manuscript for publication in a journal requires several careful considerations to ensure that research findings are communicated to the satisfaction of editors and reviewers, and effectively to the readers. This commentary provides a summary of the main points to consider, outlining how to: (1) select a suitable journal, (2) tailor the manuscript for the journal readership, (3) organise the content of the manuscript in line with the journal’s guidelines, and (4) manage feedback from the peer review process. This commentary reviews the steps of the writing process, identifies common pitfalls, and proposes ways to overcome them. It aims to assist both novice and established researchers in the field of clinical pharmacy to enhance the quality of writing in a research paper to maximise impact

Scope, content and quality of clinical pharmacy practice guidelines:a systematic review

Background Guidelines for pharmacy practitioners regarding various clinical pharmacy activities have been published ina number of countries. There is a need to review the guidelines and identify the scope of activities covered as a prelude todeveloping internationally acceptable common guidelines.Aim To review the scope of clinical pharmacy guidelines and assess the extent to which these guidelines conform to qualitystandards as per the AGREE II instrument.Method Medline, Embase, Guideline Central, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Google (for greyliterature) were searched for the period 2010 to January 2023. Guidelines which focused on any health care setting and anyclinical pharmacy activity were included. Data were extracted and quality assessed independently by two reviewers usingthe English version of the AGREE II instrument.Results Thirty-eight guidelines were included, mostly originating from Australia (n = 10), Ireland (n = 8), UK (n = 7) andUSA (n = 5). Areas covered included medication reconciliation, medicines optimisation, medication management and transi-tion of care. As per the AGREE II assessment, the highest score was obtained for the scope and purpose domain and the low-est score for rigour of development, mainly due to non-consideration of literature/evidence to inform guideline development.Conclusion Clinical pharmacy guidelines development processes need to focus on all quality domains and should take asystematic approach to guideline development. Guidelines need to further emphasise person-centred care and clinical com-munication. There is a scope to harmonise the guidelines internationally considering the diverse practices, standards and legislations across different geographie

Scope, content and quality of clinical pharmacy practice guidelines:a systematic review

Background Guidelines for pharmacy practitioners regarding various clinical pharmacy activities have been published ina number of countries. There is a need to review the guidelines and identify the scope of activities covered as a prelude todeveloping internationally acceptable common guidelines.Aim To review the scope of clinical pharmacy guidelines and assess the extent to which these guidelines conform to qualitystandards as per the AGREE II instrument.Method Medline, Embase, Guideline Central, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Google (for greyliterature) were searched for the period 2010 to January 2023. Guidelines which focused on any health care setting and anyclinical pharmacy activity were included. Data were extracted and quality assessed independently by two reviewers usingthe English version of the AGREE II instrument.Results Thirty-eight guidelines were included, mostly originating from Australia (n = 10), Ireland (n = 8), UK (n = 7) andUSA (n = 5). Areas covered included medication reconciliation, medicines optimisation, medication management and transi-tion of care. As per the AGREE II assessment, the highest score was obtained for the scope and purpose domain and the low-est score for rigour of development, mainly due to non-consideration of literature/evidence to inform guideline development.Conclusion Clinical pharmacy guidelines development processes need to focus on all quality domains and should take asystematic approach to guideline development. Guidelines need to further emphasise person-centred care and clinical com-munication. There is a scope to harmonise the guidelines internationally considering the diverse practices, standards and legislations across different geographie

Writing a manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal: Guidance from the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy

Publishing in reputable peer-reviewed journals is an integral step of the clinical pharmacy research process, allowing for knowledge transfer and advancement in clinical pharmacy practice. Writing a manuscript for publication in a journal requires several careful considerations to ensure that research findings are communicated to the satisfaction of editors and reviewers, and effectively to the readers. This commentary provides a summary of the main points to consider, outlining how to: (1) select a suitable journal, (2) tailor the manuscript for the journal readership, (3) organise the content of the manuscript in line with the journal’s guidelines, and (4) manage feedback from the peer review process. This commentary reviews the steps of the writing process, identifies common pitfalls, and proposes ways to overcome them. It aims to assist both novice and established researchers in the field of clinical pharmacy to enhance the quality of writing in a research paper to maximise impact

Prevalence, country-specific prescribing patterns and determinants of benzodiazepine use in community-residing older adults in 7 European countries

Background: The use of benzodiazepines (BZDs) in older population is often accompanied by drug-related complications. Inappropriate BZD use significantly alters older adults’ clinical and functional status. This study compares the prevalence, prescribing patterns and factors associated with BZD use in community-dwelling older patients in 7 European countries. Methods: International, cross-sectional study was conducted in community-dwelling older adults (65 +) in the Czech Republic, Serbia, Estonia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Turkey, and Spain between Feb2019 and Mar2020. Structured and standardized questionnaire based on interRAI assessment scales was applied. Logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with BZD use. Results: Out of 2,865 older patients (mean age 73.2 years ± 6.8, 61.2% women) 14.9% were BZD users. The highest prevalence of BZD use was identified in Croatia (35.5%), Spain (33.5%) and Serbia (31.3%). The most frequently prescribed BZDs were diazepam (27.9% of 426 BZD users), alprazolam (23.7%), bromazepam (22.8%) and lorazepam (16.7%). Independent factors associated with BZD use were female gender (OR 1.58, 95%CI 1.19–2.10), hyperpolypharmacy (OR 1.97, 95%CI 1.22–3.16), anxiety (OR 4.26, 95%CI 2.86–6.38), sleeping problems (OR 4.47, 95%CI 3.38–5.92), depression (OR 1.95, 95%CI 1.29–2.95), repetitive anxious complaints (OR 1.77, 95%CI 1.29–2.42), problems with syncope (OR 1.78, 95%CI 1.03–3.06), and loss of appetite (OR 0.60, 95%CI 0.38–0.94). In comparison to Croatia, residing in other countries was associated with lower odds of BZD use (ORs varied from 0.49 (95%CI 0.32–0.75) in Spain to 0.01 (95%CI 0.00–0.03) in Turkey), excluding Serbia (OR 1.11, 95%CI 0.79–1.56). Conclusions: Despite well-known negative effects, BZDs are still frequently prescribed in older outpatient population in European countries. Principles of safer geriatric prescribing and effective deprescribing strategies should be individually applied in older BZD users