Manuscript Preparation and Publication

Holmes, David R.; Hodgson, Patricia; Nishimura, Rick A.; Simari, Robert D.

doi:10.1161/circulationaha.107.752782

Cited by 17 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This review found that various expressions have been used to refer to PIDT. Homes et al . claim that standardization of the definition and expression of PIDT is necessary to enable readers to interpret the results of different studies and relate them to the overall context.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualizing and measuring potentially inappropriate drug therapy

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary What is known and objective Elderly people are the principal consumers of prescription drugs. The more the medication used by the patient, the greater the likelihood there is of the patient being subjected to potentially inappropriate drug therapy (PIDT). PIDT has been measured in the literature with both implicit and explicit tools. The purpose of this review was to assess the use of tools to detect PIDT in various studies and to determine which terms are used to refer to PIDT in practice. Methods A systematic review was conducted according to the following steps: the first was identification. In this step, studies were selected from different combinations of the descriptors ‘aged’, ‘elderly’, ‘inappropriate prescribing’ and ‘drug utilization’ in three different languages, using the Embase, Medline, Scielo, Scopus and Web of Science databases. Second, the papers that satisfied the inclusion criteria for data extraction were carefully examined by three evaluators to determine the tools used and terms that referred to PIDT. Results and discussion From the combinations of keywords, 8610 articles were found. At the end of the selection process, 119 of the articles complied with the specified criteria. The degree of agreement among evaluators was moderate for the study titles (κ1 = 0·479) and substantial for abstracts (κ2 = 0·647). With respect to the PIDT evaluation criteria used by the studies, 27·7% used two criteria. Of the 27 evaluation criteria identified, the Beers criteria were used by 82·3% of the studies. More than 50 different terms to identify PIDT were found in the literature. What is new and conclusion This review is the first study to conceptualize and discuss terms that refer to PIDT. At present, there is no consensus regarding terms used to refer to PIDT, with over 50 different terms currently in use. This review shows an increase in the number of articles aimed at evaluating PIDT using implicit and explicit tools.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualizing and measuring potentially inappropriate drug therapy

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies [2][3][4][5] similarly used ICMJE criteria to define guest authorship among any study author; however, unlike previous studies, we did not include revising the manuscript Bcritically for important intellectual requirement^as a contribution, since we sought to focus on the initial writing of the manuscript, which is generally viewed as the responsibility of the primary authors. 10 …”

Section: Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Industry Collaboration and Primary Guest Authorship of High-Impact Randomized Clinical Trials: A Cross-Sectional Study

Roper

Korenstein

2015

J GEN INTERN MED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We also disagree that the initial writing of the manuscript is Bgenerally^viewed as the responsibility of the primary author(s). 6 There is no such guidance in the ICMJE criteria, though we acknowledge that there are a few journals that specify this in their individual instructions for authors. The ICMJE authorship criteria are viewed by many as flawed, but they are widely accepted by journals and publishers.…”

Section: T O the Editorsmentioning

confidence: 99%