MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399027885 · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017101

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

2024· review· en· W4399027885 on OpenAlexaff
Aili Langford, Imaan Warriach, Aisling M. McEvoy, Elisa Karaim, Shyleen Chand, Justin P. Turner, Wade Thompson, Barbara Farrell, Danielle Pollock, Frank Moriarty, Danijela Gnjidic, Nagham Ailabouni, Emily Reeve

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Quality & Safety · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsBruyèreUniversity of OttawaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Health and Medical Research Council
KeywordsDeprescribingMedicineGuidelinePolypharmacyBeers CriteriaMEDLINEFamily medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Deprescribing (medication dose reduction or cessation) is an integral component of appropriate prescribing. The extent to which deprescribing recommendations are included in clinical practice guidelines is unclear. This scoping review aimed to identify guidelines that contain deprescribing recommendations, qualitatively explore the content and format of deprescribing recommendations and estimate the proportion of guidelines that contain deprescribing recommendations. Methods Bibliographic 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. Results 80 guidelines containing 316 deprescribing recommendations were included. Deprescribing recommendations had substantial variability in their format and terminology. Most guidelines contained recommendations regarding forwho(75%, n=60), what(99%, n=89) andwhen or why(91%, n=73) to deprescribe, however, fewer guidelines (58%, n=46) contained detailed guidance onhowto deprescribe. Approximately 29% of guidelines identified from the registries sample (n=14/49) contained one or more deprescribing recommendations. Conclusions Deprescribing recommendations are increasingly being incorporated into guidelines, however, many guidelines do not contain clear and actionable recommendations onhowto deprescribe which may limit effective implementation in clinical practice. A co-designed template or best practice guide, containing information on aspects of deprescribing recommendations that are essential or preferred by end-users should be developed and employed. Trial registration number osf.io/fbex4.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.350
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.350
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0300.033
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.719
GPT teacher head0.722
Teacher spread0.002 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Quality & SafetySame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207