SynthesisPloS one2018
A systematic review of regulatory and educational interventions to reduce the burden associated with the prescriptions of sedative-hypnotics in adults treated for sleep disorders.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Benzodiazepine use in Spain: risks and perspectives on the current situation and proposals for their rational use.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Reducing the use of sleep-inducing drugs during hospitalisation by a multi-faceted intervention: a pilot study.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2024Article
- Prescribing Pattern of Hypnotic Medications in Patients Initiating Treatment at Japanese Hospitals: A Nationwide, Retrospective, Longitudinal, Observational Study Using a Claims Database.Drugs - real world outcomes · 2021Article
- Consumption of psychotropic medicines at a referral hospital in Namibia: findings and implications.African health sciences · 2020Article
- Prevalence of Potentially Inappropriate Medication use in older drivers.BMC geriatrics · 2019Article
- Sleep-Aids Derived from Natural Products.Biomolecules & therapeutics · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe burden of Sedative-Hypnotics (SHs) has been known since the 1980s. Yet, their consumption remains high. A systematic review of the literature should help to assess efficient interventions to improve the appropriate use of SHs in sleep disorders.
objectivesTo identify and assess regulatory and educational interventions designed to improve the appropriate use of SHs for insomnia treatment.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of the literature according to PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search covering the period 1980-2015 was carried out in Medline, Web of Science, Embase and PsycInfo. We included studies reporting the implementation of regulatory or educational strategies directed towards patients and/or healthcare professionals to improve the appropriate use of SHs to treat insomnia in the community, hospitals and nursing homes.
resultsThirty-one studies were included: 23 assessed educational interventions (recommendations by mail/email, computer alerts, meetings, mass media campaigns, prescription profile), 8 assessed regulatory interventions (prescription rule restriction, end of reimbursement). The most recent was implemented in 2009. Restrictive prescription rules were effective to reduce the consumption of targeted SHs but led to a switch to other non-recommended SHs. Among educational interventions, only 3 studies out of 7 reported positive results of mono-faceted interventions; whereas, 13 out of the 16 multi-faceted interventions were reported as efficient: particularly, the active involvement of healthcare professionals and patients and the spread of information through mass media were successful. The risk of bias was high for 24 studies (mainly due to the design), moderate for 3 studies and weak for 4 studies.
conclusionEducational multifaceted studies are presented as the most efficient. But further better designed studies are needed to make evidence-based results more generalizable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.