Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24763332›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Potentially inappropriate prescribing in older primary care patients.

Sandra Vezmar Kovačević, Mika Simišić, Svetlana Stojkov Rudinski, Milica Ćulafić, Katarina Vučićević, Milica Prostran, Branislava Miljković

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Polypharmacy in older patients at primary care units in Brazil.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sandra Vezmar KovačevićDepartment of Pharmacokinetics and Clinical Pharmacy, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Pharmacy, Belgrade, Serbia.
Mika SimišićPharmacy Subotica, Subotica, Serbia.
Svetlana Stojkov RudinskiPharmacy Subotica, Subotica, Serbia.
Milica ĆulafićDepartment of Pharmacokinetics and Clinical Pharmacy, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Pharmacy, Belgrade, Serbia.
Katarina VučićevićDepartment of Pharmacokinetics and Clinical Pharmacy, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Pharmacy, Belgrade, Serbia.
Milica ProstranDepartment of Pharmacology, Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia.
Branislava MiljkovićDepartment of Pharmacokinetics and Clinical Pharmacy, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Pharmacy, Belgrade, Serbia.
University of Belgrade · RSUniversity of Belgrade – Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of Belgrade – Faculty of Medicine

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of the study was to determine the rate of Potentially Inappropriate Medicines (PIM) and Potential Prescription Omissions (PPO) according to Screening Tool of Older Person's potentially inappropriate Prescriptions/Screening Tool to Alert doctors to the Right Treatment (STOPP/START) criteria. STUDY

designA cross-sectional survey in community pharmacy.

methodA prospective cross-sectional study was performed, during March-May 2012, in five community pharmacies. Patients aged ≥65 years, who collected one or more prescribed medications, were asked to participate in the study, and an interview was scheduled. Patients were asked to provide their complete medical and biochemical record from their general practitioner.

results509 patients, mean age 74.8±6.5 years, 57.4% female, participated in the study. 164 PIM were identified in 139 patients (27.3%). The most common were: long-term use of long-acting benzodiazepines (20.7%), use of non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID) in patients with moderate-severe hypertension (20.1%), use of theophylline as monotherapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, 15.9%) and use of aspirin without appropriate indication (15.2%). Patients with more than four prescpritions had a higher risk for PIM (OR 2.85, 95% CI 1.97-4.14, p<0.001). There were 439 PPO, identified in 257, (50.5%) patients. Predictors for PPO were older age, presence of diabetes, myocardial infarction, osteoporosis, stroke, COPD and/or angina pectoris.

conclusionSTOPP/START criteria may be useful in identifying inappropriate prescribing and improving the current prescribing practices. Pharmacists should focus more on patients with more than four medications and/or patients with gout or pain accompanied with arterial hypertension because those patient may be at higher risk of PIM. Additionlly, patients older than 74 years with diabetes, osteoporosis, myocardial infarction, stroke, angina pectoris and/or COPD may have an increased risk of PPO.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesDrug PrescriptionsFemaleHumansInappropriate PrescribingMalePractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareProspective StudiesRisk

Identifiers

PMID24763332
PMCPMC3999035
OpenAlexW2093274763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.