Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15521897›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2004

Influence of socioeconomic status on the quality of prescribing in the elderly -- a population based study.

Enitan Odubanjo, Kathleen Bennett, John Feely

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

3 authors.

Enitan OdubanjoDepartment of Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St. James' Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Kathleen Bennett
John Feely

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo compare the quantity and quality of prescribing, using prescribing indicators, between the relatively deprived and the relatively affluent patients over 70 years old in primary care.

methodsWe examined the General Medical Services (GMS) scheme prescribing data for the Eastern region in Ireland for all patients aged 70 years or more (n = 95 055) during July 2001-December 2002. Prescribing indicators applied to the prescription data to evaluate drugs prescribed to each patient were classified as: (1) descriptive, e.g. number of drug items/patient; (2) indicators assessing potentially harmful prescribing; (3) evidence-based indicators, e.g. secondary prevention therapy in those with ischaemic heart disease (IHD). Results are expressed as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals for comparison of prescribing between the relatively deprived and affluent cohorts, adjusted for age and gender (CI) using logistic regression analysis.

resultsThe relatively deprived cohort was more likely to receive a greater number of drugs (5.2 vs. 4.5, P < 0.0001), more generic products (P = 0.01) and be exposed to major polypharmacy (> or = five drugs) compared with monotherapy (OR = 1.58; 95% CI = 1.52,1.64, P < 0.0001). They were more likely to receive potentially harmful drugs such as cerebral vasodilators (OR = 1.52; 1.38,1.69), long-acting sulphonylurea (OR = 1.43; 1.20,1.72), potentially interacting agents such as angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and potassium sparing diuretic (OR = 1.78; 1.48,2.15). In terms of evidence-based prescribing, the relatively deprived cohort with IHD was less likely to receive secondary prevention therapies such as statins (OR = 0.82; 0.74, 0.90) and beta blockers (OR = 0.85; 0.77,0.93).

conclusionsThese results show that suboptimal prescribing is more prevalent among the relatively deprived cohort and suggests the differences observed in the quality of prescribing between these patient groups may be related to their socioeconomic status.

Indexed as

Quality of Health CareAgedCohort StudiesDrug PrescriptionsFemaleHealth Services for the AgedHumansIrelandMaleOdds RatioPatient Acceptance of Health CareRegression AnalysisSocioeconomic Factors

Identifiers

PMID15521897
PMCPMC1884614

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.