Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27747830›Full record

ArticleDrugs - real world outcomes2016

Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Multimorbid Elderly Inpatients: Differences Between the FORTA, PRISCUS and STOPP Ratings.

Beate Wickop, Steffen Härterich, Christian Sommer, Anne Daubmann, Michael Baehr, Claudia Langebrake

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drugs - real world outcomes, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Prescribing Practices in Geriatric Patients with Cardiovascular Diseases.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Observational
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Potentially inappropriate medication in older psychiatric patients.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Beate WickopHospital Pharmacy, University Medical Centre Hamburg Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. b.wickop@uke.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2673-3336
Steffen HärterichHospital Pharmacy, University Medical Centre Hamburg Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Christian SommerHospital Pharmacy, University Medical Centre Hamburg Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Anne DaubmannMedical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Centre Hamburg Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Michael BaehrHospital Pharmacy, University Medical Centre Hamburg Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Claudia LangebrakeHospital Pharmacy, University Medical Centre Hamburg Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Universität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral classifications to identify and avoid use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in the elderly have been published. To what extent these classifications match each other and whether there are differences in the prevalence of PIM use at admission, during the inpatient stay and at discharge are largely unreported.

objectivesTo determine the PIM prevalence in elderly patients at a university hospital, with a special focus on different classification systems and the chronological sequence, and to examine a possible association between PIM use and the reason for admission, as well as severe side effects and consequences of PIM use during hospitalization.

methodsOn the basis of the criteria provided by FORTA (Fit for the Aged), PRISCUS (Latin for 'time-honoured') and STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons' Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions), medication in patients over the age of 65 years was screened retrospectively within four point prevalence analyses at admission, during the inpatient stay and at discharge. Evaluation of a possible association between PIM use and the primary diagnosis or severe side effects during hospitalization was performed according to an analysis using the World Health Organization Uppsala Monitoring Centre system for standardized case causality assessment.

resultsOf 200 patients, 176 (88 %) received at least one PIM at admission, during the inpatient stay and/or at discharge (116 patients according to FORTA, 113 according to PRISCUS and 138 according to STOPP). When the PIM prevalence was compared between the three different sets of criteria, STOPP identified significantly more patients receiving PIMs than FORTA (P = 0.022) and PRISCUS (P = 0.010). At the patient level and at the drug level, the use of PIMs increased during the inpatient stay; however, the PIM prevalence was similar at admission and at discharge, both at the patient level and at the drug level.

conclusionMedication is rated significantly differently by FORTA, PRISCUS and STOPP. In addition, a significant rise in prescribing of PIMs during the inpatient stay illustrates that a reduction in PIM use during the inpatient stay is essential, as it is known that avoiding PIM use in older adults is one strategy to decrease the risk of adverse events.

Identifiers

PMID27747830
PMCPMC5042941
OpenAlexW2492166317

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.