ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2019
Consequences of ignoring patient diagnoses when using the 2015 Updated Beers Criteria.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Tools for Evaluating Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults: A Scoping Review Assessing Suitability for Register-Based Research.Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBeers Criteria are one of the best known explicit criteria to identify inappropriate medication in elderly that can be used in medication review. The access to patients' medical records may be different among healthcare professionals and settings and, subsequently, the identification of patients' diagnoses may be compromised.
objectiveTo assess the consequences of ignoring patient diagnoses when applying 2015 Beers Criteria to identify potentially inappropriate medication (PIM).
settingThree nursing homes in Central Portugal.
methodMedical records of nursing home residents over 65 years old were appraised to identify medication profile and medical conditions. 2015 Beers Criteria were used with and without considering patients' diagnoses. To compare the number of PIM and PIM-qualifying criteria complied in these two judgements, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were performed.
main outcome measureNumber of PIMs and number of PIM-qualifying criteria.
resultsA total of 185 patients with a mean age of 86.7 years (SD = 7.8) with a majority of female (70.3%) were studied. When assessing the patients with full access to the diagnoses, median number of PIMs was 4 (IQR 0-10) and number of PIM-qualifying criteria was 5 (IQR 0-15). When evaluating only patient current medication, median number of PIMs was 4 (IQR 0-10) and PIM-qualifying criteria was 4 (IQR 0-12). Statistical difference was found in the number of PIM-qualifying criteria identified (p < 0.001), but not in the number of PIMs per patient (p = 0.090). In 171 patients (92.4%) PIMs identified were identical when using or ignoring their medical diagnoses. However, in 80 patients (43.2%) the PIM-qualifying criteria complied were different with and without access to patient diagnoses.
conclusionAlthough restricted access to patients' diagnoses may limit the judgement of Beers PIM-qualifying criteria, this limitation had no effect on the number of PIM identified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31020601What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.