Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25923961›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2015

Measuring anticholinergic drug exposure in older community-dwelling Australian men: a comparison of four different measures.

Lisa G Pont, Johannes T H Nielen, Andrew J McLachlan, Danijela Gnjidic, Lewis Chan, Robert G Cumming, Katja Taxis

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Lisa G PontAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia.
Johannes T H NielenDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Andrew J McLachlanFaculty of Pharmacy, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Danijela GnjidicFaculty of Pharmacy, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Lewis ChanDepartment of Urology, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Robert G CummingCentre for Education and Research on Ageing, University of Sydney and Concord Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Katja TaxisDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University of Sydney · AUConcord Repatriation General Hospital · AUMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsAnticholinergic drug exposure is associated with adverse outcomes in older people. While a number of tools have been developed to measure anticholinergic drug exposure, there is limited information about the agreement and overlap between the various scales. The aim of this study was to investigate the agreement and overlap between different measures of anticholinergic drug exposure in a cohort of community-dwelling older men.

methodsA cross-sectional study was used to compare anticholinergic drug exposure calculated using the Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS), the Anticholinergic Drug Scale (ADS), the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden (ACB) and the Drug Burden Index anticholinergic subscale (DBI-ACH) in a cohort of community-dwelling men aged 70 years and older (n = 1696). Statistical agreement, expressed as Cohen's kappa (κ), between these measurements was calculated.

resultsDifferences were found between the tools regarding the classification of anticholinergic drug exposure for individual participants. Thirteen percent of the population used a drug listed as anticholinergic on the ARS, 39% used a drug listed on the ADS and the ACB, and 18% of the population used one or more anticholinergic drugs listed on the DBI-ACH. While agreement was good between the ACB and ADS (κ = 0.628, 95% CI 0.593, 0.664), little agreement was found between remaining tools (κ = 0.091-0.264).

conclusionsWith the exception of the ACB and ADS, there was poor agreement regarding anticholinergic drug exposure among the four tools compared in this study. Great care should be taken when interpreting anticholinergic drug exposure using existing scales due to the wide variability between the different scales.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaCholinergic AntagonistsCross-Sectional StudiesDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansLongitudinal StudiesMalePharmaceutical PreparationsCholinergic AntagonistsPharmaceutical Preparationsanticholinergic burdenanticholinergic drug exposuredrug utilizationmethodologyolder people

Identifiers

PMID25923961
PMCPMC4631189
OpenAlexW2129571441

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.