Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25650198›Full record

ReviewClinical medicine (London, England)2015

Drug therapies in older adults (part 1).

Omar Mukhtar, Stephen H D Jackson

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Omar MukhtarKing's Health Partners, King's College Hospital, London, UK o.mukhtar@nhs.net.
Stephen H D JacksonDepartment of Clinical Gerontology, King's Health Partners, King's College Hospital, London, UK.
HealthPartners · USKings Health Partners · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prescribing for older adults represents a significant challenge as the UK population ages. Physiological decline and the rising prevalence of frailty increase the likelihood of altered pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics, suboptimal prescribing and adverse effects among this growing cohort of the population. In the first of two articles, we begin by considering these issues and posit four key questions which should be considered when prescribing for older adults. Does this agent reflect the priorities of the patient? Are there alternatives - with greater efficacy, effectiveness or tolerability - that might be considered? Are the dose, frequency and formulation appropriate? How does this prescription relate to concurrent medication? We also describe current drug therapies in two disease states with a predilection for older adults: Alzheimer's disease (AD) and osteoporosis. Using these examples we highlight the limitations of evidence-based medicine and guidelines in this cohort of the population, illustrating the reliance on sub-group analysis to demonstrate the efficacy of drug therapies for older adults in osteoporosis and the underutilisation of appropriate treatments for patients with AD as a result of flawed guidelines.

Indexed as

Drug TherapyGeriatricsAgedAged, 80 and overAgingAlzheimer DiseaseEvidence-Based MedicineHumansOsteoporosisPatient SafetyPharmacokineticsAlzheimer’s diseaseelderlygeriatricsguidelinesosteoporosisPharmacologyphysiology of ageingprescribing

Identifiers

PMID25650198
PMCPMC4954523
OpenAlexW2123044413

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.