Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29423781›Full record

ArticleDrugs & aging2018

Older Patients' Compliance with Drug Storage Recommendations.

Nicolaas D Vlieland, Bart J F van den Bemt, Charlotte L Bekker, Marcel L Bouvy, Toine C G Egberts, Helga Gardarsdottir

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drugs & aging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Adherence to Therapy in Glaucoma Treatment-A Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Parental perception of medications safe storage in the State of Qatar.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors.

Nicolaas D VlielandDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Division Laboratory and Pharmacy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Bart J F van den BemtDepartment of Pharmacy, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Charlotte L BekkerDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Division Laboratory and Pharmacy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marcel L BouvyDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Toine C G EgbertsDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Division Laboratory and Pharmacy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Helga GardarsdottirDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Division Laboratory and Pharmacy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. h.gardarsdottir@umcutrecht.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhereas storage conditions are regulated and closely monitored in every stage of the drug supply chain before drug dispensing, it is unknown if patients store drugs at home according to storage recommendations.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate how older patients store their prescription drugs at home and to what extent they comply with drug storage recommendations.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study between October 2015 and March 2016. Forty-four participating Dutch community pharmacies selected four home-dwelling patients (aged ≥ 65 years) using at least one prescription drug. A complete drug inventory at patients' homes was performed. Drugs were considered to fulfill the storage recommendation when these met all drug quality (Q) and information (I) criteria: adequately stored according to drug product label storage recommendations for temperature, light, humidity (Q1); expiry date not passed (Q2); integer primary package (Q3); drug identifiability (I1); drug package insert or information leaflet availability (I2).

resultsOne hundred and seventy patients [53.5% female, mean age 74.9 (standard deviation 7.3) years] were included and 1133 prescription drugs stored at home were registered. More than half of the patients (51.2%) complied with all storage quality and information criteria. Assessment of the individual criteria showed that 76.4% of patients were compliant with criterion Q1 while 90.6, 95.3, 97.1 and 71.2% of patients complied with criteria Q2, Q3, I1 and I2, respectively. 53.2% of drugs that should be kept refrigerated according to storage criterion Q1 were not stored between 2 and 8 °C.

conclusionThis study illustrates that more than half of the older patients comply with general drug storage recommendations.

Indexed as

Guideline AdherencePatient ComplianceAgedAge FactorsCross-Sectional StudiesDrug LabelingDrug StorageFemaleHumansMalePharmaciesPrescription DrugsPrescription Drugs

Identifiers

PMID29423781
PMCPMC5884895

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.