Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29453677›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2018

Changes in medicine prescription following a medication review in older high-risk patients with polypharmacy.

Marian Z M Hurmuz, Sarah I M Janus, Jeannette G van Manen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

3 authors.

Marian Z M HurmuzDept. Health Technology & Services Research Faculty of Behavioural, Management & Social Sciences, Universty of Twente, P.O. box 217, 7500, AE Enschede, Netherlands.
Sarah I M JanusDept. Health Technology & Services Research Faculty of Behavioural, Management & Social Sciences, Universty of Twente, P.O. box 217, 7500, AE Enschede, Netherlands.
Jeannette G van ManenDept. Health Technology & Services Research Faculty of Behavioural, Management & Social Sciences, Universty of Twente, P.O. box 217, 7500, AE Enschede, Netherlands. j.g.vanmanen@utwente.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6100-3983

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background The more (inappropriate) drugs a patient uses, the higher the risk of drug related problems. To reduce these risks, medication reviews can be performed. Objective To report changes in the prescribed number of (potentially inappropriate) drugs before and after performing a medication review in high-risk polypharmacy patients. A secondary objective was to study reasons for continuing potentially inappropriate drugs (PIDs). Setting Dutch community pharmacy and general medical practice. Methods A retrospective longitudinal intervention study with a pre-test/post-test design and follow-up of 1 week and 3 months was performed. The study population consisted of 126 patients with polypharmacy and with additional risk for drug related problems that underwent a medication review in five community pharmacies. The medication review was performed by the pharmacist in close cooperation with the general practitioner of each corresponding patient. Main outcome measure Number of (potentially inappropriate) drugs, and appropriateness of prescribed medicines. Results The average number of drugs a patient used 1 day before the review was 8.7 (SD = 2.9), which decreased (p < 0.05) to 8.3 (SD = 2.7) 1 week after the review, and to 8.4 (SD = 2.6) 3 months after the review. The average number of PIDs was initially 0.6 (SD = 0.8) per patient and decreased to 0.4 (SD = 0.6, p < 0.05). Twenty-two of the 241 initial drug changes (9%) were deprescribed during follow-up. Registered reasons for continuing PIDs are clinical or patients' preferences. Conclusions Performing medication reviews in polypharmacy patients seems useful to continue at least in high-risk patients in The Netherlands. The time-consuming reviews could be limited to patients who are willing to change their medication.

Indexed as

Drug PrescriptionsPolypharmacyAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsCommunity Pharmacy ServicesFemaleHumansInappropriate PrescribingLongitudinal StudiesMaleMedication ReconciliationNetherlandsRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsDrug prescriptionElderlyMedication reviewPolypharmacyThe Netherlands

Identifiers

PMID29453677
PMCPMC5918522

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.