Current status of the Matson Evaluation of Drug Side Effects (MEDS)

Matson, Johnny L.; Cervantes, Paige E.

doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.02.030

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Eight studies utilised the MEDS scale or subscale to identify adverse effects of medication. This scale has been described as the most reliable and most researched scale in participants with ID [ 34 ]. However, a substantial proportion of the sources which used the MEDS scale, and subsequently their associated results, were obtained through analysis of participants drawn from the same cohort by the same researchers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rating scales to measure adverse effects of medications in people with intellectual disability: a scoping review

Kelly

Kilmartin

Lannon

et al. 2022

Eur J Clin Pharmacol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Intellectual disability (ID) is a chronic neurodevelopmental condition characterised by limitations in intelligence and adaptive skills with an onset prior to the age of 18 years. People with ID have complex healthcare needs and are more likely than the general population to experience multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy, with subsequent increased risk of adverse medication effects. The aim of this scoping review is to characterise rating scales used to measure adverse effects of medication in people with ID. Methods Four online databases (PsycINFO, Medline, Web of Science and OpenGrey) were searched in April 2020. Studies were assessed for inclusion against pre-specified eligibility criteria. Reference lists of included studies were hand searched. Data extraction was carried out by two independent reviewers and key findings were tabulated for consideration. Studies were assessed for quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results The search resulted in 512 unique records, of which fifteen met the inclusion criteria. Fourteen scales were identified. All scales assessed adverse effects of psychotropics only. Of the scales, only one, the Matson Evaluation of Drug Side Effects, which focuses on psychotropic medications, was originally developed for use in a population with ID. Conclusion The Matson Evaluation of Drug Side Effects scale appears to be the most reliable and well-researched scale in people with ID. However, a scale which measures adverse effects across multiple medication classes would be valuable for use in this population.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These include scales developed specifically for use in people with ID (e.g. the Matson Evaluation of Drug Side Effects (MEDS) [17,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40]) or modified versions of scales developed for the general population (e.g. the Udvalg for Kliniske Undersøgelser (UKU) Rating Scale [41]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rating scales to measure adverse effects of medications in people with intellectual disability: a scoping review

Kelly

Kilmartin

Lannon

et al. 2022

Eur J Clin Pharmacol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Withdrawal symptoms and side effects Withdrawal symptoms and other side effects will be measured with the Matson Evaluation of Drug Side Effects (MEDS). The MEDS is a 90-item validated assessment that can detect side effects of psychotropic drugs in people with ID [69][70][71]. It includes nine domains: cardiovascular and hematologic effects, gastrointestinal effects, endocrine/genitourinary effects, eye/ear/nose/throat effects, skin/allergy/temperature effects, CNS (central nervous system)-general, CNS-dystonia, CNS-parkinsonism/ dyskinesia and CNS-behavioural-akathisia [69].…”

Section: Diagnostic Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antipsychotics withdrawal in adults with intellectual disability and challenging behaviour: study protocol for a multicentre double-blind placebo-controlled randomised trial

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In people with intellectual disability (ID) and challenging behaviour, antipsychotics (AP) are often used off-label and for a long period. Despite a lack of evidence for efficacy for challenging behaviour and concerns about common and clinically relevant side effects, complete withdrawal often fails. We postulate three possible hypotheses for withdrawal failure: 1. Influence of subjective interpretation of behavioural symptoms by caregivers and family; 2. Beneficial effects from AP treatment on undiagnosed psychiatric illness, through improvement in sleep or a direct effect on behaviour; and 3. Misinterpretation of withdrawal symptoms as a recurrence of challenging behaviour. Methods To investigate our hypotheses, we have designed a multicentre double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in which AP (pipamperone or risperidone) are withdrawn. In the withdrawal group, the AP dose is reduced by 25% every 4 weeks and in the control group the dose remains unaltered. Behaviour, sleep, psychiatric disorders, withdrawal symptoms and side effects will be measured and compared between the two groups. If drop-out from the protocol is similar in both groups (non-inferiority), the first hypothesis will be supported. If drop-out is higher in the withdrawal group and an increase is seen in psychiatric disorders, sleep problems and/or behavioural problems compared to the control group, this suggests effectiveness of AP, and indications for AP use should be reconsidered. If drop-out is higher in the withdrawal group and withdrawal symptoms and side effects are more common in the withdrawal group compared to the control group, this supports the hypothesis that withdrawal symptoms contribute to withdrawal failure. Discussion In order to develop AP withdrawal guidelines for people with ID, we need to understand why withdrawal of AP is not successful in the majority of people with ID and challenging behaviour. With this study, we will bridge the gap between the lack of available evidence on AP use and withdrawal on the one hand and the international policy drive to reduce prescription of AP in people with ID and challenging behaviour on the other hand. Trial registration This trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR 7232) on October 6, 2018 (www.trialregister.nl).

show abstract