Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26597955›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2016

Clinical medication reviews in elderly patients with polypharmacy: a cross-sectional study on drug-related problems in the Netherlands.

Sek Hung Chau, Aaltje P D Jansen, Peter M van de Ven, Petra Hoogland, Petra J M Elders, Jacqueline G Hugtenburg

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Nationwide Long-Term Evaluation of Polypharmacy Reduction Policies Focusing on Older Adults in Japan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

6 authors.

Sek Hung ChauDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacy, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. s.chau@vumc.nl.
Aaltje P D JansenThe EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Peter M van de VenDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Petra HooglandDepartment of Pharmaceutical Affairs, Service Apotheek Beheer B.V., Enter, The Netherlands.
Petra J M EldersThe EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jacqueline G HugtenburgDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacy, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKnowledge of drug-related problems (DRPs) identified in the medication of home-dwelling elderly patients with polypharmacy has been based predominantly on medication reviews conducted in research settings rather than in daily practice.

objectiveTo evaluate the prevalence of DRPs identified by means of a clinical medication review (CMR) and the implementation rate of proposed interventions in a large group of older patients with polypharmacy in the daily practice of community pharmacies.

setting318 Dutch community pharmacies.

methodA cross-sectional study based on CMR-data of 3807 older patients (≥65 years) with polypharmacy (≥5 drugs) completed between January and August 2012. Data were extracted from community pharmacists' databases and entailed: year of birth, gender, dispensing data, number and nature of identified DRPs, consultations performed, proposed and implemented interventions. Main outcome measure Prevalence of DRPs, drug classes involved in overtreatment and undertreatment, and proposed and implemented interventions.

resultsA median of two DRPs (interquartile range 1-4; mean 3.0) was identified per patient. The DRP-categories overtreatment (25.5 %) and undertreatment (15.9 %) were found most frequently. 46.2 % of the proposed interventions to solve DRPs were implemented as proposed, in 22.4 % of cases, the intervention differed from the proposal. In 31.3 % of cases no intervention was implemented.

conclusionBy conducting a CMR community pharmacists identified a median of two DRPs in older patients with polypharmacy. Overtreatment and undertreatment accounted for 41.4 % of the DRPs identified. In dealing with DRPs, pharmacists proposed a variety of interventions of which the majority (69.9 %) was either implemented or led to alternative interventions. A set of explicit criteria should be applied during a CMR to solve and prevent DRPs.

Indexed as

Community Pharmacy ServicesMedication Therapy ManagementPolypharmacyAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsCross-Sectional StudiesDatabases, FactualDrug PrescriptionsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleHumansInappropriate PrescribingIndependent LivingMaleMedication ReconciliationClinical medication reviewsCommunity pharmacistsDrug-related problemsNetherlandsOlder adultsPatient carePharmaceutical care

Identifiers

PMID26597955
PMCPMC4733134

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.