Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28093640›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2017

Polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications: a cross-sectional analysis among 451 nursing homes in France.

Marie Herr, Helene Grondin, Stéphane Sanchez, Didier Armaingaud, Caroline Blochet, Antoine Vial, Philippe Denormandie, Joël Ankri

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European 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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Toxicity Potential of Nutraceuticals.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Marie HerrINSERM, U1168, VIMA: Aging and Chronic Diseases, Epidemiological and Public Health Approaches, F-94807, Villejuif, France. marie.herr@uvsq.fr.
Helene GrondinINSERM, U1168, VIMA: Aging and Chronic Diseases, Epidemiological and Public Health Approaches, F-94807, Villejuif, France.
Stéphane SanchezPôle Information Médicale Evaluation Performance, Centre Hospitalier de Troyes, Troyes, France.
Didier ArmaingaudKorian, Paris, France.
Caroline BlochetMedissimo, Poissy, France.
Antoine VialAVL, Paris, France.
Philippe DenormandieInstitut du Bien Vieillir, Paris, France.
Joël AnkriINSERM, U1168, VIMA: Aging and Chronic Diseases, Epidemiological and Public Health Approaches, F-94807, Villejuif, France.
Vieillissement et Maladies Chroniques. Approches Epidémiologiques et de santé publique · FRCentre Hospitalier de Troyes · FRUniversité de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe quality of drug therapy is an important issue for nursing homes. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in a large sample of nursing home residents by using the data recorded during the preparation of pill dispensers.

methodsThis is a cross-sectional study that included 451 nursing homes across France. Information about the medications received by the 30,702 residents (73.8% women) living in these nursing homes was extracted from the system that assists in the preparation of pill dispensers in pharmacies. The anonymized database included age, sex, and medications prescribed to residents, as well as nursing home characteristics (capacity, legal status). Factors associated with excessive polypharmacy (≥10 different drugs) and PIMs according to the Laroche list were studied using multilevel regression models.

resultsThe average number of drugs prescribed was 6.9 ± 3.3, and excessive polypharmacy concerned 21.1% of the residents (n = 6468). According to the Laroche list, 47.4% of residents (n = 14,547) received at least one PIM. Benzodiazepines (excessive doses, long-acting benzodiazepines, and combination of benzodiazepines) and anticholinergic medications (hydroxyzine, cyamemazine, alimemazine) accounted for a large part of PIMs. Individual characteristics (age, gender) influenced the risk of receiving PIMs whereas nursing home characteristics (capacity, legal status) influenced the risk of excessive polypharmacy.

conclusionsThis study shows that polypharmacy and PIMs remain highly prevalent among nursing home residents. Main PIMs concerned psychotropic and anticholinergic medications.

Indexed as

PolypharmacyAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFranceHumansMaleNursing HomesAgedFrail elderlyInappropriate prescribingInformation systemNursing homesPolypharmacy

Identifiers

PMID28093640
OpenAlexW2573767225

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.