Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31085530›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of family medicine2019

Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing Among Older Persons: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

Tau Ming Liew, Cia Sin Lee, Kuan Liang Goh Shawn, Zi Ying Chang

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of family medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
5.5field-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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 115 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Tool use isn't enough-outcomes matter.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025
    Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tau Ming LiewDepartment of Geriatric Psychiatry, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore tau_ming_liew@imh.com.sg.
Cia Sin LeeSingHealth Polyclinics, Singapore.
Kuan Liang Goh ShawnSingHealth Polyclinics, Singapore.
Zi Ying ChangSingHealth Polyclinics, Singapore.
SingHealth Polyclinics · SGNational University of Singapore · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePotentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is a common yet preventable medical error among older persons in primary care. It is uncertain whether PIP produces adverse outcomes in this population, however. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to pool the adverse outcomes of PIP specific to primary care.

methodWe searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, and previous review articles for studies related to "older persons," "primary care," and "inappropriate prescribing." Two reviewers selected eligible articles, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was conducted to pool studies with similar PIP criteria and outcome measures.

resultsOf the 2,804 articles identified, we included 8 articles with a total of 77,624 participants. All included studies had cohort design and low risk of bias. Although PIP did not affect mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.05), it was significantly associated with the other available outcomes, including emergency room visits (RR 1.63; 95% CI, 1.32-2.00), adverse drug events (RR 1.34; 95% CI, 1.09-1.66), functional decline (RR 1.53; 95% CI, 1.08-2.18), health-related quality of life (standardized mean difference -0.26; 95% CI, -0.36 to -0.16), and hospitalizations (RR 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.44). A majority of the pooled estimates had negligible heterogeneity.

conclusionsThis meta-analysis provides consolidated evidence on the wide-ranging impact of PIP among older persons in primary care. It highlights the need to identify PIP in primary care, calls for further research on PIP interventions in primary care, and points to the need to consider potential implications when deciding on the operational criteria of PIP.

Indexed as

Practice Patterns, Physicians'AgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansInappropriate PrescribingObservational Studies as TopicOutcome Assessment, Health CarePregnancyPrimary Health Careadverse outcomesagedfamily physiciansfamily practicegeneral practicegeneral practitionersinappropriate prescribingmedication errorsmeta-analysisprimary health caresystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31085530
PMCPMC6827633
OpenAlexW2945772606

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.