SynthesisPloS one2015
A systematic review of medication exposure assessment in prospective cohort studies of community dwelling older australians.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medication Exposure Patterns in Primary Care Patients Prescribed Pharmacogenetically Actionable Opioids.Qualitative report (Online) · 2018Article
- The Reporting Of MEdication use in Observational studies (ROMEO) Statement.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIt is not known to what extent medication use has been comprehensively assessed in prospective cohort studies of older Australians. Understanding the varying methods to assess medication use is necessary to establish comparability and to understand the opportunities for pharmacoepidemiological analysis. The objective of this review was to compare and contrast how medication-related data have been collected in prospective cohorts of community-dwelling older Australians.
methodsMEDLINE and EMBASE (1990-2014) were systematically searched to identify prospective cohorts of ≥1000 older participants that commenced recruitment after 1990. The data collection tools used to assess medication use in each cohort were independently examined by two investigators using a structured approach.
resultsThirteen eligible cohorts were included. Baseline medication use was assessed in participant self-completed surveys (n = 3), by an investigator inspecting medications brought to a clinic interview (n = 7), and by interviewing participants in their home (n = 3). Five cohorts sought participant consent to access administrative claims data. Six cohorts used multiple methods to assess medication use across one or more study waves. All cohorts assessed medication use at baseline and 12 cohorts in follow-up waves. Twelve cohorts recorded prescription medications by trade or generic name; 12 cohorts recorded medication strength; and 9 recorded the daily medication dose in at least one wave of the cohort. Seven cohorts asked participants about their "current" medication use without providing a definition of "current"; and nine cohorts asked participants to report medication use over recall periods ranging from 1-week to 3-months in at least one wave of the cohort. Sixty-five original publications, that reported the prevalence or outcomes of medication use, in the 13 cohorts were identified (median = 3, range 1-21).
conclusionThere has been considerable variability in the assessment of medication use within and between cohorts. This may limit the comparability of medication data collected in these cohorts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.