Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26407687›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2015

Potentially inappropriate prescribing in community-dwelling older people across Europe: a systematic literature review.

Eline Tommelein, Els Mehuys, Mirko Petrovic, Annemie Somers, Pieter Colin, Koen Boussery

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European 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 167 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
167citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
12.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

167 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 297 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

107 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 1 institution in 2 countries.

Eline TommeleinPharmaceutical Care Unit, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ghent University, Ottergemsesteenweg 460, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. Eline.Tommelein@UGent.be.
Els MehuysPharmaceutical Care Unit, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ghent University, Ottergemsesteenweg 460, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Mirko PetrovicDepartment of Internal medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Annemie SomersPharmaceutical Care Unit, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ghent University, Ottergemsesteenweg 460, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Pieter ColinLaboratory of Medical Biochemistry and Clinical Analysis, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Koen BousseryPharmaceutical Care Unit, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ghent University, Ottergemsesteenweg 460, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Ghent University · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPotentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is one of the main risk factors for adverse drug events (ADEs) in older people. PURPOSE: This systematic literature review aims to determine prevalence and type of PIP in community-dwelling older people across Europe, as well as identifying risk factors for PIP.

methodsThe PubMed and Web of Science database were searched systematically for relevant manuscripts (January 1, 2000-December 31, 2014). Manuscripts were included if the study design was observational, the study participants were community-dwelling older patients in Europe, and if a published screening method for PIP was used. Studies that focused on specific pathologies or that focused on merely one inappropriate prescribing issue were excluded. Data analysis was performed using R statistics.

resultsFifty-two manuscripts were included, describing 82 different sample screenings with an estimated overall PIP prevalence of 22.6 % (CI 19.2-26.7 %; range 0.0-98.0 %). Ten of the sample screenings were based on the Beers 1997 criteria, 19 on the Beers 2003 criteria, 14 on STOPP criteria (2008 version), 8 on START-criteria (2008 version), and 7 on the PRISCUS list. The 24 remaining sample screenings were carried out using compilations of screening methods or used country-specific lists such as the Laroche criteria. It appears that only PIP prevalence calculated from insurance data significantly differs from the other data collection method categories. Furthermore, risk factors most often positively associated with PIP prevalence were polypharmacy, poor functional status, and depression. Drug groups most often involved in PIP were anxiolytics (ATC-code: N05B), antidepressants (N06A), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory and anti-rheumatic products (M01A).

conclusionPIP prevalence in European community-dwelling older adults is high and depends partially on the data collection method used. Polypharmacy, poor functional status, and depression were identified as the most common risk factors for PIP.

Indexed as

AgedDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsEuropeHumansInappropriate PrescribingPolypharmacyPractice Patterns, Physicians'PrevalenceRisk FactorsAgedCommunity-dwellingInappropriate prescribingPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID26407687
OpenAlexW1764410526

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.