Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10343422›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1999

Polypharmacy in general practice: differences between practitioners.

L Bjerrum, J Søgaard, J Hallas, J Kragstrup

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Assessing the impact of national antibiotic campaigns in Europe.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2013
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

L BjerrumDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Odense University, Denmark. l-bjerrum@winchs.ou.dk
J Søgaard
J Hallas
J Kragstrup

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPolypharmacy, the simultaneous use of multiple drugs, is associated with adverse drug reactions, medication errors, and increased risk of hospitalization. When the number of concurrently used drugs totals five or more (major polypharmacy), a significant risk may be present.

aimTo analyse the interpractice variation in the prevalence of major polypharmacy among listed patients, and to identify possible predictors of major polypharmacy related to the practice.

methodPrescription data were retrieved from the Odense Pharmacoepidemiological Database, and individuals subject to major polypharmacy were identified. The age- and sex-standardized prevalence rate of major polypharmacy was calculated for each practice in the County of Funen in Denmark (n = 173), using the distribution of age and sex of the background population as a reference. The practice characteristics were retrieved from the Regional Health Insurance System. Possible predictors of major polypharmacy related to the general practitioners (GPs) were analysed using backward stepwise linear multiple regression.

resultsA six-fold variation between the practices in the prevalence of major polypharmacy was found (16 to 96 per 1000 listed patients; median = 42). Predictors related to the practice structure, workload, clinical work profile, and prescribing profile could explain 56% of the variation.

conclusionA substantial part of the variation in major polypharmacy between practices can be explained by predictors related to practice.

Indexed as

PolypharmacyPractice Patterns, Physicians'AdultAgedDenmarkFamily PracticeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID10343422
PMCPMC1313371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.