Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24271923›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2014

Factors associated with potentially inappropriate medications use by the elderly according to Beers criteria 2003 and 2012.

André de Oliveira Baldoni, Lorena Rocha Ayres, Edson Zangiacomi Martinez, Nathalie de Lourdes Souza Dewulf, Vânia Dos Santos, Leonardo Régis Leira Pereira

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A Systematic Review of Opioid and Benzodiazepine Misuse in Older Adults.The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry · 2016
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Prescribing for geriatrics in Tehran; is it appropriate and rational?Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2019
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

André de Oliveira BaldoniPharmaceutical Services and Clinical Pharmacy Research Center (CPAFF), Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmaceutical Science of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo (FCFRP-USP), Avenida do Café, s/no., Campus Universitário da USP, Ribeirão Preto, SP, 14040-903, Brazil, andrebaldoni@yahoo.com.br.
Lorena Rocha Ayres
Edson Zangiacomi Martinez
Nathalie de Lourdes Souza Dewulf
Vânia Dos Santos
Leonardo Régis Leira Pereira
Universidade de São Paulo · BRUniversidade de Ribeirão Preto · BRUniversidade Federal de Goiás · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPotentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) should be avoided by the elderly because they possess a significant high risk for this population when a safer alternative is available. Therefore, the identification of prevalence and factors associated with PIMs should be considered as they provide valuable information that can be used to develop strategies to ensure patients' safety.

objectiveTo identify the prevalence and the clinical and socioeconomic-demographic factors that may be associated with PIMs use in the elderly, according to Beers criteria 2003 and its updated version 2012. And, as a secondary objective, a comparison between both criteria was performed.

settingPharmacy of the Basic Health District Unit of the western district of Ribeirão Preto.

methodsThis cross-sectional observational study was conducted with the elderly, assisted by the Brazilian public health system. Data from patients were collected through a structured interview form. Beers criteria 2003 and 2012 were used to classify PIMs. The association between PIMs used and independent variables were analyzed by odds ratios. The differences between PIMs use according to Beers criteria 2003 and 2012 were analyzed by McNemar's test and the agreement by kappa coefficient.

main outcome measurePrevalence and factors associated with PIMs use in Brazilian elderly outpatients.

resultsOne thousand elderly patients were interviewed. High prevalence of PIMs use was observed, 48.0 and 59.2 % according to Beers criteria 2003 and 2012, respectively. The factors associated with PIMs use, common for both criteria, are female gender, self-medication, use of over the counter drugs, complaints related to adverse drug event, psychotropic medication, polypharmacy and some categories of drugs. PIMs use is different between Beers criteria 2003 and 2012 (McNemar's test, p < 0.01), although a substantial agreement between these classifications was observed (kappa coefficient 0.635, 95% confidence intervals (0.588, 0.681).

conclusionsOur study showed a high prevalence of PIMs use, which is associated with various clinical and social-demographic factors. When comparing both criteria through McNemar's test, PIMs use was considered different. The differences may have occurred because medications with high prevalence of use in Brazil were included in Beers criteria 2012 .

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleHumansInappropriate PrescribingMaleMiddle AgedNonprescription DrugsPolypharmacyPrevalencePsychotropic DrugsTime FactorsNonprescription DrugsPsychotropic Drugs

Identifiers

PMID24271923
OpenAlexW1996137209

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.