Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30683971›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2019

A systematic review and novel classification of listing tools to improve medication in older people.

Farhad Pazan, Jonathan Kather, Martin Wehling

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. [Why represcribing instead of deprescribing?]Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. [The FORTA (Fit fOR The Aged) List].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Farhad PazanInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.
Jonathan KatherInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.
Martin WehlingInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany. martin.wehling@medma.uni-heidelberg.de.
University Hospital Heidelberg · DEUniversity Medical Centre Mannheim · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSuboptimal drugs therapy is a threat to older people, and listing tools providing guidance are developed to address this problem.

methodsA systematic review was performed to identify and analyze such tools published until February 2018. A novel categorization was developed to separate patient-in-focus listing approaches (PILA) providing disease-related positive and negative guidance from drug-oriented, mostly negative listing approaches (DOLA, DOLA+: with disease specification).

resultsIn total, 76 tools were identified; only 9 were classified as PILA, 26 as DOLA, and 38 as DOLA+. Three DOLA(+) only address dementia. Most tools were developed in Europe or the USA and address community-dwellers. Thirty-two utilized a Delphi process, and only 10 provide a scoring system. Twenty tools utilize a questionnaire but no structured guidance or answers. Importantly, only 12 interventional clinical trials were identified reporting not only medication quality measures, but also clinical endpoints (e.g. falls, adverse drug reactions, hospitalization). For PILA, 4 trials showed positive, one negative clinical effects of a controlled intervention, for DOLA(+) 1 was positive, 7 negative (Fisher's exact test p < 0.05). DISCUSSION: An abundance of listing tools has been created. DOLAs that may be applied without intricate patient knowledge prevail over PILAs by sevenfold; unfortunately their clinical validation seems to be far less successful than that of patient-initiated approaches.

conclusionDrug therapy in older people has to be tailored to their individual, very divergent needs; tools requiring detailed medical knowledge about the patient as the starting point for medication optimization provide the best support.

Indexed as

AgedAge FactorsDelivery of Health CareHealth Services for the AgedHumansMultimorbidityPublicationsClinical endpointsDrug-oriented toolsListing approachesPatient-in-focus toolsPolypharmacy

Identifiers

PMID30683971
OpenAlexW2911507358

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.