ArticleBMJ open2018
Computerised decision to reduce inappropriate medication in the elderly: a systematic review with meta-analysis protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluating the role of clinical decision support systems in medication safety for older people: a systematic review.Age and ageing · 2025Pooled it
- Reducing Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions for Older Patients Using Computerized Decision Support Tools: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Risk factors and outcomes of intraoperative blood transfusion in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Prevalence and Factors that Influence Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use among Thai Elderly in Primary Care Settings.Canadian geriatrics journal : CGJ · 2021Article
- Article
- Role of a Digital Clinical Decision-Support System in General Practitioners' Management of COPD in Norway.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2021Article
- Using EMR-enabled computerized decision support systems to reduce prescribing of potentially inappropriate medications: a narrative review.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLife expectancy continues to increase in developed countries. Elderly people are more likely to consume more medications and become vulnerable to age-related changes in drugs' pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Recent studies have identified opportunities and barriers for deprescribing potentially inappropriate medications. It has already been demonstrated that computerised decision support systems can reduce physician orders for unnecessary tests. We will systematically review the available literature to understand if computerised decision support is effective in reducing the use of potentially inappropriate medications, thus having an impact on health outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review will be conducted using MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE and Web of Science databases, as well as the grey literature assessing the effectiveness of computer decision support interventions in deprescribing inappropriate medication, with an impact on health outcomes in the elderly. The search will be performed during January and February 2018. Two reviewers will conduct articles' screening, selection and data extraction, independently and blind to each other. Eligible sources will be selected after discussing non-conformities. All extracted data from the included articles will be assessed based on studies' participants, design and setting, methodological quality, bias and any other potential sources of heterogeneity. This review will be conducted and reported in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement of quality for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As a systematic review, this research is exempt from ethical approval. We intend to publish the full article in a related peer-reviewed journal and present it at international conferences. PROSPEROREGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017067021.
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.