Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27891666›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2017

A systematic review of the outcomes reported in trials of medication review in older patients: the need for a core outcome set.

Jean-Baptiste Beuscart, Lisa G Pont, Stefanie Thevelin, Benoit Boland, Olivia Dalleur, Anne W S Rutjes, Johanna I Westbrook, Anne Spinewine

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

8 authors.

Jean-Baptiste BeuscartLouvain Drug Research Institute (LDRI), Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-0734-8371
Lisa G PontCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia.
Stefanie ThevelinLouvain Drug Research Institute (LDRI), Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Benoit BolandGeriatric Medicine, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Olivia DalleurLouvain Drug Research Institute (LDRI), Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Anne W S RutjesCTU Bern, Department of Clinical Research, University of Bern, Switzerland.
Johanna I WestbrookCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia.
Anne SpinewineLouvain Drug Research Institute (LDRI), Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimMedication review has been advocated as one of the measures to tackle the challenge of polypharmacy in older patients, yet there is no consensus on how best to evaluate its efficacy. This study aimed to assess outcome reporting in trials of medication review in older patients.

methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective studies and RCT protocols involving medication review performed in patients aged 65 years or older in any setting of care were identified from: (1) a recent systematic review; (2) RCT registries of ongoing studies; (3) the Cochrane library. The type, definition, and frequency of all outcomes reported were extracted independently by two researchers.

resultsForty-seven RCTs or prospective published studies and 32 RCT protocols were identified. A total of 327 distinct outcomes were identified in the 47 published studies. Only one fifth (21%) of the studies evaluated the impact of medication reviews on adverse events such as drug reactions or drug-related hospital admissions. Most of the outcomes were related to medication use (n = 114, 35%) and healthcare use (n = 74, 23%). Very few outcomes were patient-related (n = 24, 7%). A total of 248 distinct outcomes were identified in the 32 RCT protocols. Overall, the number of outcomes and the number and type of health domains covered by the outcomes varied largely.

conclusionOutcome reporting from RCTs concerning medication review in older patients is heterogeneous. This review highlights the need for a standardized core outcome set for medication review in older patients, to improve outcome reporting and evidence synthesis.

Indexed as

Medication Therapy ManagementAgedDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePolypharmacyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Designelderlymedication reviewoutcomes assessmentrandomized controlled trialssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27891666
PMCPMC6436185

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.