Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30479739›Full record

ReviewTherapeutic advances in drug safety2018

Principle of rational prescribing and deprescribing in older adults with multiple chronic conditions.

Gregory M Ouellet, Jennifer A Ouellet, Mary E Tinetti

Abstract 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 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

3 authors.

Gregory M OuelletSection of Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, 367 Cedar Street, Harkness A, Room 308-A, New Haven, CT 06520-8093, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7731-2104
Jennifer A OuelletSection of Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Mary E TinettiSection of Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.

Funding

Yale Study Support Suite (YES3): Dashboard and Web Portal Software Supporting Research Workflow through integrated, customizable REDCap External ModulesP30AG021342 · NIA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Albert C Shaw · 2002 to 2026
$37.9M
Yale Training Program in Geriatric Clinical Epidemiology and Aging-Related ResearchT32AG019134 · NIA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Terri R. Fried · 2001 to 2026
$7.5M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG021342NIA NIH HHS T32 AG019134
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the majority of older adults in the developed world live with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs), the task of selecting optimal treatment regimens is still fraught with difficulty. Older adults with MCCs may derive less benefit from prescribed medications than healthier patients as a result of the competing risk of several possible outcomes including, but not limited to, death before a benefit can be accrued. In addition, these patients may be at increased risk of medication-related harms in the form of adverse effects and significant burdens of treatment. At present, the balance of these benefits and harms is often uncertain, given that older adults with MCCs are often excluded from clinical trials. In this review, we propose a framework to consider patients' own priorities to achieve optimal treatment regimens. To begin, the practicing clinician needs information on the patient's goals, what the patient is willing and able to do to achieve these goals, an estimate of the patient's clinical trajectory, and what the patient is actually taking. We then describe how to integrate this information to understand what matters most to the patient in the context of an array of potential tradeoffs. Finally, we propose conducting serial therapeutic trials of prescribing and deprescribing, with success measured as progress towards the patient's own health outcome goals. The process described in this manuscript is truly an iterative process, which should be repeated regularly to account for changes in the patient's priorities and clinical status. With this process, we aim to achieve optimal prescribing, that is, treatment regimens that maximize benefits that matter to the patient and minimize burdens and potential harms.

Indexed as

chronic conditionsdeprescriptionshealth prioritiesmedicationsmultimorbiditypolypharmacyprescriptions

Identifiers

PMID30479739
PMCPMC6243421

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.