Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27527376›Full record

ArticleInternal medicine journal2016

Medication appropriateness tool for co-morbid health conditions in dementia: consensus recommendations from a multidisciplinary expert panel.

A T Page, K Potter, R Clifford, A J McLachlan, C Etherton-Beer

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Internal medicine journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. [Why represcribing instead of deprescribing?]Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Deprescribing in older people.Australian prescriber · 2020
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors.

A T PageSchool of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia. Amy.page@uwa.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2084-8469
K PotterSchool of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia.
R CliffordSchool of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia.
A J McLachlanFaculty of Pharmacy and Centre for Education and Research on Ageing, University of Sydney and Concord Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
C Etherton-BeerSchool of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedication management for people living with dementia is a complex task as it is unclear what constitutes optimal medication management in this population due to the shifting focus of health priorities and the balance between the benefits and harms of medications.

aimThis study sought expert opinion to create a consensus list to define appropriate medication management of co-morbidities for people with dementia.

methodsThis study used the Delphi technique. We invited multidisciplinary experts in geriatric therapeutics including pharmacists, doctors, nurse practitioners, a patient advocate and a psychologist to participate. Participants were asked to engage into three or more rounds of questioning. Round 1 was a questionnaire comprised of one question defining dementia and seven open-ended questions about appropriate management of co-morbidities in people with dementia. Two investigators qualitatively analysed the responses to questions from Round 1 using thematic analysis. The results of this analysis were provided to participants as statements in the Round 2 survey. The participants were asked to rate their agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The median and interquartile range (IQR) were calculated for the responses to each statement. Consensus was pre-specified as an IQR less than or equal to 1. Statements where consensus was not achieved were presented to participants in Round 3. The Round 2 median and IQR values were provided and participants were again asked to rate their agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The statements where participants agreed or strongly agreed were included in the Medication Appropriateness Tool for Co-morbid Health conditions in Dementia criteria.

resultsFifty-seven experts agreed to participate in the study, of whom 58% were pharmacists and 36% were medical practitioners. Fifty-five participants completed the Round 1 (95% response rate). A total of 128 statements was included in the Round 2 survey. Consensus was reached on 93 statements in Round 2 (n = 48 responders, 84% response rate) and on 18 statements in Round 3 (n = 43 responders, 75% response rate). The participants reached consensus on 111 of 128 statements. Of these statements, 67 statements were included in the Medication Appropriateness Tool for Co-morbid Health conditions in Dementia criteria. The statements were in the broad themes of preventative medication, symptom management, disease progression, psychoactive medication, treatment goals, principles of medication use, side-effects and medication reviews. DISCUSSION: This research provides consensus-based guidance for clinicians who manage co-morbid health conditions in people with dementia.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAustraliaCognitive DysfunctionComorbidityDelphi TechniqueDementiaFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationMaleMedication Therapy ManagementMiddle AgedPractice Guidelines as TopicSurveys and Questionnairescognitive impairmentdementiaolder adultsprescribing criteria

Identifiers

PMID27527376
PMCPMC5129475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.