Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27503282›Full record

Observational studyInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2016

Potentially inappropriate prescribing in nursing home residents detected with the community pharmacist specific GheOP(3)S-tool.

Eline Tommelein, Els Mehuys, Mirko Petrovic, Annemie Somers, Charlotte Van Damme, Eva Pattyn, Kristof Mattelin, Koen Boussery

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study 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 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
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

8 authors.

Eline TommeleinPharmaceutical Care Unit, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ghent University, Ottergemstesteenweg 460, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. Eline.Tommelein@UGent.be.
Els MehuysPharmaceutical Care Unit, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ghent University, Ottergemstesteenweg 460, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Mirko PetrovicDepartment of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Annemie SomersDepartment of Pharmacy, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Charlotte Van DammePharmaceutical Care Unit, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ghent University, Ottergemstesteenweg 460, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Eva PattynPharmaceutical Care Unit, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ghent University, Ottergemstesteenweg 460, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Kristof MattelinPharmaceutical Care Unit, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ghent University, Ottergemstesteenweg 460, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Koen BousseryPharmaceutical Care Unit, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ghent University, Ottergemstesteenweg 460, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background The Ghent Older People's Prescriptions community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP³S-)tool was recently developed to screen for potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP). Objective We aimed (1) to determine PIP prevalence in older nursing home (NH) residents with polypharmacy using the GheOP³S-tool and (2) to identify those PIPs that are most frequently detected. Method A cross-sectional study was carried out between February and June 2014 in 10 NHs in Belgium, supplied by a community pharmacy chain. For each NH, 40 residents (≥70 years, using ≥5 chronic drugs) were included. PIP prevalence was determined using the GheOP³S-tool. Results 400 NH residents were included [mean age (±SD) 86.2 (±6.3) years; median number of drugs (±IQR) 10 (7-12)]. A total of 1728 PIPs were detected in 387 (97 %) participants (Median 4; IQR 2-6). The most prevalent items can be assigned to three categories: long-term use of central nervous system drugs (i.e. benzodiazepines, antidepressants and antipsychotics), use of anticholinergic drugs (mutual combinations and with underlying constipation/dementia) and underuse of osteoporosis prophylaxis. Conclusion Screening for PIP by means of the GheOP³S-tool revealed a high prevalence of PIP among older NH residents with polypharmacy. This finding urges for initiatives on the patient-level, but also on a broader, institutional level.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBelgiumCross-Sectional StudiesDrug PrescriptionsFemaleHomes for the AgedHumansInappropriate PrescribingMaleNursing HomesPharmaciesPharmacistsRandom AllocationAgedBelgiumGheOP³SInappropriate prescribingNursing homesPIP

Identifiers

PMID27503282

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.