Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30519976›Full record

Trial reportAging clinical and experimental research2019

The Finnish Interprofessional Medication Assessment (FIMA): baseline findings from home care setting.

K Auvinen, J Räisänen, M Merikoski, A Mäntylä, A Kumpusalo-Vauhkonen, H Enlund, T Liukkonen, J Jyrkkä, E Lönnroos, P Mäntyselkä

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

K AuvinenThe East Savo Hospital District, BOX 111, 57101, Savonlinna, Finland. kati.auvinen@sosteri.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4832-8497
J RäisänenThe East Savo Hospital District, BOX 111, 57101, Savonlinna, Finland.
M MerikoskiAssessment of Pharmacotherapies, Finnish Medicines Agency, Kuopio, Finland.
A MäntyläAssessment of Pharmacotherapies, Finnish Medicines Agency, Kuopio, Finland.
A Kumpusalo-VauhkonenAssessment of Pharmacotherapies, Finnish Medicines Agency, Kuopio, Finland.
H EnlundAssessment of Pharmacotherapies, Finnish Medicines Agency, Kuopio, Finland.
T LiukkonenThe South Savo Hospital District, Mikkeli, Finland.
J JyrkkäAssessment of Pharmacotherapies, Finnish Medicines Agency, Kuopio, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4929-441X
E LönnroosInstitute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
P MäntyselkäInstitute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5236-1815
University of Eastern Finland · FIFinnish Medicines Agency Fimea · FICiência Viva · PTKarsa (Finland) · FIMoisio Hospital · FI

Funding

Etelä-Savon Rahasto 12172075
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMedication-related problems and declined functional capacity are closely associated factors among older people. The purpose of this study is to describe the procedure of interprofessional medication assessment in home care context and the baseline characteristics of the study population.

methodsThe FIMA study was a randomized, controlled intervention study comparing general practitioner-led interprofessional medication assessment and usual care. Patients' chronic diagnoses and medication use as well as physical and cognitive functions were investigated. Performance in daily activities, use of care services and help from family and relatives, self-rated health and health-related quality of life, and adverse effects commonly related to medication were assessed.

resultsThe home care patients (n = 512) had significant disease burden and functional limitations. The mean number of all medicines was 15 and that of regularly taken medicines 10. The majority of patients (87%) had excessive polypharmacy. The most commonly used (97%) ATC medicine class was nervous system medicines. Clinically relevant (class C or D SFINX record) drug-drug interactions were seen in 74% of the patients. The most frequent risks of adverse effects were risk of bleeding (66%), constipation (58%) and orthostatism (54%) occurring in over half of the patients. Medicines affecting renal function were used by 85% of the patients.

conclusionsThere is an evident need and justification for medication assessments in home care. In most cases, home care patients fulfill the criteria for regular medication assessments.

Indexed as

Home Care ServicesAgedAged, 80 and overDrug InteractionsFemaleFinlandGeneral PractitionersHumansMalePatient Care TeamPolypharmacyQuality of LifeAgedGeriatric assessmentHome careInterdisciplinary health teamMedicinesOlder people

Identifiers

PMID30519976
PMCPMC6763522
OpenAlexW2903223849

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.