ArticleBMC geriatrics2015
Detection of potentially inappropriate prescribing in the very old: cross-sectional analysis of the data from the BELFRAIL observational cohort study.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The feasibility and effect of deprescribing in older adults on mortality and health: a systematic review and meta-analysis.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Pooled it
- Optimizing Therapy to Prevent Avoidable Hospital Admissions in Multimorbid Older Adults (OPERAM): cluster randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Trial
- Improving usability of the STOPP/START version 3 criteria: development of a practice tool for clinicians, students and researchers.European geriatric medicine · 2025Article
- Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing to Older Patients Admitted to Units for Integrated Continuous Care: Application of STOPP/START Criteria.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- General practitioners' views on inappropriate prescribing for older patients: a qualitative study through focus groups.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Statin therapy in multimorbid older patients with polypharmacy- a cross-sectional analysis of the Swiss OPERAM trial population.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Clinical relevance of potentially inappropriate medications and potential prescribing omissions according to explicit criteria-a validation study.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
- Article
- Quality of prescribing in older people from a broad family physician perspective: a descriptive pilot study.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Can screening tools for potentially inappropriate prescriptions in older adults prevent serious adverse drug events?European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Article
- Inappropriate Prescribing in Elderly Inpatients at a University Hospital in Saudi Arabia.Drugs - real world outcomes · 2018Article
- Article
- Incidence and cost of medication harm in older adults following hospital discharge: a multicentre prospective study in the UK.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Article
- Implementing a screening tool to improve prescribing in hospitalized older patients: a pilot study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2018Article
- Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing in Older Adults with Hypertension or Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension in a Primary Care Setting in Bahrain.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2018Article
- Article
- Analysis of polypharmacy effects in older patients using Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database.PloS one · 2017Article
- Potentially inappropriate medications in hospitalized older patients: a cross-sectional study using the Beers 2015 criteria versus the 2012 criteria.Clinical interventions in aging · 2017Article
- Too many, too few, or too unsafe? Impact of inappropriate prescribing on mortality, and hospitalization in a cohort of community-dwelling oldest old.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known about the prevalence and clinical importance of potentially inappropriate prescribing instances (PIPs) in the very old (>80 years). The main objective was to describe the prevalence of PIPs according to START (Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment; omissions) and,STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions; over/misuse) and the Beers list (over/misuse). Secondary objectives were to identify determinants if PIPs and to assess the clinical importance to modify the treatment in case of PIPs.
methodsCross-sectional analysis of baseline data of the BELFRAIL cohort, which included 567 Belgian patients aged 80 and older in primary care. Two independent researchers applied the screening tools to the study population to detect PIPs. Next, a multidisciplinary panel of experts rated the clinical importance of the PIPs on a subsample of 50 patients.
resultsIn this very old population (median age 84 years, 63 % female), the screening detected START-PIPs in 59 % of patients, STOPP-PIPs in 41 % and Beers-PIPs in 32 %. Assessment of the clinical importance revealed that the most frequent PIPs were of moderate or major importance. In 28 % of the subsample, the relevance of the PIP was challenged by the global medical, functional and social background of the patient hence the validity of some criteria was questioned.
conclusionPotentially inappropriate prescribing is highly prevalent in the very old. A good understanding of the patients' medical, functional and social context is crucial to assess the actual appropriateness of drug treatment.
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.