Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28689375›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2017

Psychotropic polypharmacy in Australia, 2006 to 2015: a descriptive cohort study.

Jonathan Brett, Benjamin Daniels, Emily A Karanges, Nicholas A Buckley, Carl Schneider, Atheer Nassir, Andrew J McLachlan, Sallie-Anne Pearson

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jonathan BrettMedicines Policy Research Unit, Centre for Big Data Research in Health, University of New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3065-7495
Benjamin DanielsMedicines Policy Research Unit, Centre for Big Data Research in Health, University of New South Wales, Australia.
Emily A KarangesMedicines Policy Research Unit, Centre for Big Data Research in Health, University of New South Wales, Australia.
Nicholas A BuckleySchool of Medicine, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Carl SchneiderFaculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Atheer NassirFaculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Andrew J McLachlanFaculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Sallie-Anne PearsonMedicines Policy Research Unit, Centre for Big Data Research in Health, University of New South Wales, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo describe psychotropic polypharmacy in Australia between 2006 and 2015.

methodsWe used pharmaceutical claims from a national 10% sample of people with complete dispensing histories to estimate the annual prevalence of the combined use (overlap of >60 days exposure) of ≥2 psychotropics overall and within the same class or subclass (class and subclass polypharmacy). We also estimated the proportion of polypharmacy episodes involving one, two, three and four or more unique prescribers.

resultsThe prevalence of class polypharmacy between 2006 and 2015 in people dispensed specific psychotropic classes was 5.9-7.3% for antipsychotics, 2.1-3.7% for antidepressants and 4.3-2.9% for benzodiazepines. The prevalence of antipsychotic polypharmacy was higher than expected given the prevalence of antipsychotic exposure and combinations of sedating agents were notably common. Overall, 26.7% of polypharmacy episodes involved multiple prescribers but having multiple prescribers occurred more frequently for class and subclass polypharmacy and people with four or more concomitant psychotropics. DISCUSSION: Psychotropic polypharmacy is common, despite limited evidence of risks and benefits. Increases in polypharmacy with multiple prescribers may be due to poor communication with patients and between health care professionals.

Indexed as

PolypharmacyAdultAgedAntidepressive AgentsAntipsychotic AgentsAustraliaBenzodiazepinesCohort StudiesDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleHumansInappropriate PrescribingMaleMental DisordersMiddle AgedPotentially Inappropriate Medication ListAntidepressive AgentsAntipsychotic AgentsBenzodiazepinesantidepressantantipsychoticbenzodiazepinepolypharmacypsychotropic

Identifiers

PMID28689375
PMCPMC5651325
OpenAlexW2727888142

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.