Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30181861›Full record

ReviewTherapeutic advances in drug safety2018

Medication use and potentially inappropriate prescribing in older adults with intellectual disabilities: a neglected area of research.

Maire O'Dwyer, Philip McCallion, Mary McCarron, Martin Henman

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Therapeutic advances in drug safety, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Psychotropic drugs intake in people aging with intellectual disability: Prevalence and predictors.Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID · 2022
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Maire O'DwyerSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Dublin Trinity College, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Philip McCallionSchool of Social Work, College of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Mary McCarronFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Dublin Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Martin HenmanSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Dublin Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Trinity College Dublin · IETemple University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is known that for all adults, prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) and polypharmacy increases with advancing age and morbidity. This has been associated with adverse drug reactions and poor outcomes. As a result, screening tools have been developed to identify PIP and to improve prescribing and health outcomes. A growing body of evidence supports the fact that there are even greater concerns among older adults with intellectual disability (ID) who are living longer than before but still have premature mortality and poorer health outcomes compared with the general population. They have different patterns of multimorbidity, with higher rates of epilepsy and mental health conditions. Polypharmacy is prevalent and some prescribing practices may be inappropriate. High exposure to anticholinergic and sedative medicines has additional adverse effects on quality of life. There may also be underutilization of clinically needed therapies. There has been substantial controversy internationally relating to extensive use of psychotropic medicines, particularly off-label use for challenging behaviours. Despite the mounting evidence and concerns about the impact of PIP on quality of life, health and safety for people with ID, appropriate methods to measure PIP are lacking, which represents an important gap in the research literature. Differences in morbidity and medicines use patterns in this population mean instruments used to identify inappropriate medicines in the older population are not suitable. In this perspective article we outline the specific health and medicinal needs for people with ID, the prevalence of polypharmacy and presentation of chronic health conditions in older adults with ID. We provide an overview of the psychotropic medicine classes most frequently used in people with ID which carry substantial risk. We highlight studies to date that have attempted to assess PIP and present research priorities to improve prescribing, health outcomes and quality of life for people with ID.

Indexed as

intellectual disabilityolder adultspolypharmacypotentially inappropriate prescribingpsychotropics

Identifiers

PMID30181861
PMCPMC6116771
OpenAlexW2809458763

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.