Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30735544›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Potentially inappropriate medications according to STOPP-J criteria and risks of hospitalization and mortality in elderly patients receiving home-based medical services.

Chi-Hsien Huang, Hiroyuki Umegaki, Yuuki Watanabe, Hiroko Kamitani, Atushi Asai, Shigeru Kanda, Hideki Nomura, Masafumi Kuzuya

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Diuretics in Cardiovascular Disease: For How Long and at What Dose?Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Chi-Hsien HuangNagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Department of Community Healthcare & Geriatrics, Showa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-4619-5144
Hiroyuki UmegakiNagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Department of Community Healthcare & Geriatrics, Showa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
Yuuki WatanabeNagoya University Hospital, Department of Hospital Pharmacy, Showa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
Hiroko KamitaniNagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Department of Community Healthcare & Geriatrics, Showa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
Atushi AsaiSanei Clinic, Komaki, Aichi, Japan.
Shigeru KandaMinami Health-Medical Cooperative Kaname Hospital, Minami, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
Hideki NomuraAichi Clinic, Tenpaku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
Masafumi KuzuyaNagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Department of Community Healthcare & Geriatrics, Showa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
Nagoya University · JPE-Da Hospital · TWNagoya University Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) have been linked to poor health outcomes, country-specific PIM criteria have not been compared. Thus, we compared the identification of PIMs between the Screening Tool for Older Person's Appropriate Prescriptions for Japanese (STOPP-J) and the 2015 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria in elderly patients receiving home-based medical services.

methodsA 5-year prospective cohort study was conducted with 196 patients receiving home-based medical services. Data were collected using questionnaires and chart reviews and included detailed information on prescription medication. STOPP-J and the Beers Criteria were used to categorize PIM and non-PIM recipients. All-cause mortality and first hospitalization were compared using a multivariate Cox regression model.

resultsPIMs were detected in 132 patients (67.3%) by STOPP-J and in 141 patients (71.9%) by the Beers Criteria, and the mean numbers of PIMs were 1.3 ± 1.3 and 1.2 ± 1.1, respectively. The three most frequently prescribed STOPP-J PIMs were hypnotics (26.8%), diuretics (25.6%), and NSAIDs (12.6%), compared with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) (29.8%), hypnotics (26%), and NSAIDs (8.1%) according to the Beers Criteria. STOPP-J PIMs were associated with all-cause mortality (HR 3.01, 95% CI 1.37-6.64) and hospitalization (HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.17-3.09); neither was associated with Beers Criteria PIMs. Using a modified Beers Criteria (excluding PPIs), PIMs were correlated with first hospitalization (HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.17-3.09).

conclusionsPIMs categorized by STOPP-J are associated with hospitalization and mortality in Japanese patients receiving home-based medical services. PPIs, commonly used for acid-related diseases, do not seem to have deleterious effects on health outcomes. Country-oriented, medication-specific criteria would be of considerable clinical utility.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCause of DeathFemaleHome Care ServicesHospitalizationHumansJapanMaleMiddle AgedMortalityPotentially Inappropriate Medication ListProspective StudiesRegression AnalysisSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID30735544
PMCPMC6368320
OpenAlexW2912593516

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.