Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16189730›Full record

ArticleZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2005

Polypharmacy and older people--the GP perspective.

M Vass, C Hendriksen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. [Drug treatment of elderly patients].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2011
    Review
  7. [Delirium in the elderly].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2008
    Review
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

2 authors.

M VassInstitute of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1014, Copenhagen K, Denmark. m.vass@dadlnet.dk
C Hendriksen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is well known that problems with compliance rise exponentially when more that 4 drugs are prescribed. The rising use of prescription medicine forces the GP to balance the benefit of evidence group-based appropriate drug use against the problems arising when medication is given to older people and to consider different approaches when evaluating evidence of risk and benefit for the individual. Old people are facing a considerable risk of adverse drug reactions and recent initiatives, including the Continuous Medical Educational Efforts Programme, address issues of inappropriate prescribing practices. The authors recommend and present tools enabling the GP to focus on 'the core prescribing situation'. The logistics to optimise medication including compliance, the use of modern IT and better collaboration and communication between primary and secondary care are in focus. Since medication review is recommended at every encounter, and time consuming comprehensive follow-up will be demanded, 'polypharmacy consultations' surely will be built into GP contracts in the future. The authors state that a number of pharmacological regimens for older people are outperformed by non-pharmacological treatment alternatives involving competent individualised counselling and public provision of easy (transportation) possibilities for joining centres offering staff and equipment for physical and social activity (including basal aids for hearing and sight).

Indexed as

PolypharmacyAgedAged, 80 and overFamily PracticeGermanyHealth Services for the AgedHumansPhysician-Patient RelationsPractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary PreventionRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

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.