Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28405697›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2017

Potentially inappropriate medicines in elderly hospitalised patients according to the EU(7)-PIM list, STOPP version 2 criteria and comprehensive protocol.

Iva Mucalo, Maja Ortner Hadžiabdić, Andrea Brajković, Sonja Lukić, Patricia Marić, Ivana Marinović, Vesna Bačić-Vrca

Abstract 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 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Iva MucaloCentre for Applied Pharmacy, University of Zagreb Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, A. Kovacica 1, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia. imucalo@pharma.hr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5566-9356
Maja Ortner HadžiabdićCentre for Applied Pharmacy, University of Zagreb Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, A. Kovacica 1, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia.
Andrea BrajkovićCentre for Applied Pharmacy, University of Zagreb Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, A. Kovacica 1, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia.
Sonja LukićUniversity of Zagreb Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, A. Kovacica 1, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia.
Patricia MarićUniversity of Zagreb Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, A. Kovacica 1, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia.
Ivana MarinovićDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, University Hospital Dubrava, Av. Gojka Suska 6, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia.
Vesna Bačić-VrcaCentre for Applied Pharmacy, University of Zagreb Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, A. Kovacica 1, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia.
University of Zagreb · HRUniversity Hospital Dubrava · HR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to measure the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) by using the EU(7)-PIM list, STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions) version 2 criteria and the new comprehensive protocol.

methodsThis prospective study involved a sample of 276 consecutive elderly patients discharged from the university teaching hospital. Age, gender, diagnoses, medication history and medicines at discharge were recorded. The main outcome measure was the prevalence of PIMs according to each set of criteria: EU(7)-PIM list, STOPP version 2 criteria and comprehensive protocol.

resultsThe median patient age (range) was 74 (65-92) years. The median number of prescribed medications was 7 (1-17). STOPP identified 393 PIMs affecting 190 patients (69%), EU(7)-PIM list identified 330 PIMs in 184 patients (66.7%) whilst the comprehensive protocol identified 134 PIMs in 102 patients (37%). STOPP version 2 criteria identified significantly more PIMs per patient than the other two protocols (p < 0.001). Gender (p = 0.002), glomerular filtration rate (p = 0.039) and number of comorbidities (p = 0.001) were associated with the proportion of PIMs for the STOPP version 2 criteria only.

conclusionA very high PIM prevalence at discharge was reported suggesting the urgent need for actions to reduce them. STOPP version 2 criteria identified significantly more PIMs than the EU(7)-PIM list and the comprehensive protocol and was found as a more sensitive tool for PIM detection.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCroatiaFemaleHospitalizationHospitals, UniversityHumansInappropriate PrescribingMalePotentially Inappropriate Medication ListComprehensive protocolEU(7)-PIM listPolypharmacyPotentially inappropriate medicinesSTOPP version 2 criteria

Identifiers

PMID28405697
OpenAlexW2606878513

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.