BackgroundThe Timed Up and Go test (TUG) is a commonly used screening tool to assist clinicians to identify patients at risk of falling. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the overall predictive value of the TUG in community-dwelling older adults.MethodsA literature search was performed to identify all studies that validated the TUG test. The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool, a validated tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. A TUG score of ≥13.5 seconds was used to identify individuals at higher risk of falling. All included studies were combined using a bivariate random effects model to generate pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity at ≥13.5 seconds. Heterogeneity was assessed using the variance of logit transformed sensitivity and specificity.ResultsTwenty-five studies were included in the systematic review and 10 studies were included in meta-analysis. The TUG test was found to be more useful at ruling in rather than ruling out falls in individuals classified as high risk (>13.5 sec), with a higher pooled specificity (0.74, 95% CI 0.52-0.88) than sensitivity (0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.57). Logistic regression analysis indicated that the TUG score is not a significant predictor of falls (OR = 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02, p = 0.05).ConclusionThe Timed Up and Go test has limited ability to predict falls in community dwelling elderly and should not be used in isolation to identify individuals at high risk of falls in this setting.

ObjectiveThere is limited evidence regarding the quality of prescribing for children in primary care. Several prescribing criteria (indicators) have been developed to assess the appropriateness of prescribing in older and middle-aged adults but few are relevant to children. The objective of this study was to develop a set of prescribing indicators that can be applied to prescribing or dispensing data sets to determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in children (PIPc) in primary care settings.DesignTwo-round modified Delphi consensus method.SettingIrish and UK general practice.ParticipantsA project steering group consisting of academic and clinical general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists was formed to develop a list of indicators from literature review and clinical expertise. 15 experts consisting of GPs, pharmacists and paediatricians from the Republic of Ireland and the UK formed the Delphi panel.Results47 indicators were reviewed by the project steering group and 16 were presented to the Delphi panel. In the first round of this exercise, consensus was achieved on nine of these indicators. Of the remaining seven indicators, two were removed following review of expert panel comments and discussion of the project steering group. The second round of the Delphi process focused on the remaining five indicators, which were amended based on first round feedback. Three indicators were accepted following the second round of the Delphi process and the remaining two indicators were removed. The final list consisted of 12 indicators categorised by respiratory system (n=6), gastrointestinal system (n=2), neurological system (n=2) and dermatological system (n=2).ConclusionsThe PIPc indicators are a set of prescribing criteria developed for use in children in primary care in the absence of clinical information. The utility of these criteria will be tested in further studies using prescribing databases.

ObjectivesEvidence is limited regarding the quality of prescribing to children. The objective of this study was to apply a set of explicit prescribing indicators to a national pharmacy claims database (Primary Care Reimbursement Service) to determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in children (PIPc) in primary care.Primary and secondary outcomes measuresTo determine the overall prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in children in primary care. To examine the prevalence of PIPc by gender.Design and settingCross-sectional study. Application of indicators of commission of PIP and omission of appropriate prescribing to a national prescribing database in Ireland.ParticipantsEligible children <16 years of age who were prescribed medication in 2014.ResultsOverall prevalence of PIPc by commission was 3.5% (95% CI 3.5% to 3.6%) of eligible children <16 years of age who were prescribed medication in 2014. Overall prevalence of PIPc by omission was 2.5% (95% CI 2.5% to 2.6%) which rose to 11.5% (95% CI 11.4% to 11.7%) when prescribing of spacer devices for children with asthma was included. The most common individual PIPc by commission was the prescribing of carbocisteine to children (3.3% of eligible children). The most common PIPc by omission (after excluding spacer devices) was failure to prescribe an emollient to children prescribed greater than one topical corticosteroid (54% of eligible children). PIPc by omission was significantly higher in males compared with females (relative risk (RR) 1.3; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.7) but no different for PIPc by commission (RR 1.0; 95% CI 0.7 to 1.6).ConclusionThis study shows that the overall prevalence of PIP in children is low, although results suggest room for improved adherence to asthma guidelines.

No abstract

No abstract