ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2019
Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study.
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 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Diagnostic Recommendations Embedded in Medication Alerts: Prospective Single-Arm Interventional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- ABiMed: An intelligent and visual clinical decision support system for medication reviews and polypharmacy management.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- What do patients with substance use disorders know about their medication? A cross-sectional interview-based study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- What do older patients know about their medication? A cross-sectional, interview-based pilot study.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2023Article
- Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants in older adults with atrial fibrillation: a prospective single-centre cohort study.Internal and emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Sedatives and analgesics are major contributors to potentially inappropriate duplicate prescriptions in geriatric psychiatry.Psychogeriatrics : the official journal of the Japanese Psychogeriatric Society · 2023Article
- Duplicate prescriptions in the emergency department: a retrospective cohort study.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2023Article
- Polypharmacy and precision medicine.Cambridge prisms. Precision medicine · 2023Review
- Potentially inappropriate medications according to PRISCUS list and FORTA (Fit fOR The Aged) classification in geriatric psychiatry: a cross-sectional study.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2022Article
- Torsade de pointes in an older patient with Takotsubo cardiomyopathy caused by licorice-induced pseudoaldosteronism: A case report.Clinical case reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Polypharmacy in older patients can lead to potentially inappropriate prescribing. The risk of the latter calls for effective medication review to ensure proper medication usage and safety. Objective Provide insight on the similarities and differences of medication review done in multiple ways that may lead to future possibilities to optimize medication review. Setting This study was conducted in Zuyderland Medical Centre, the second largest teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Method This descriptive study compares the quantity and content of remarks identified by medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System. The content of remarks is categorized in seven categories of possible pharmacotherapeutic problems: 'indication without medication', 'medication without indication', 'contra-indication/interaction/side-effect', 'dosage problem', 'double medication', 'incorrect medication' and 'therapeutic drug monitoring'. Main outcome measure Number and content of remarks on medication review. Results The Clinical Decision Support System (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p < 0.001) and outpatient pharmacist (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p = 0.045) both noted remarks in significantly more categories than the geriatricians. The Clinical Decision Support System provided more remarks on 'double medication', 'dosage problem' and 'contraindication/interaction/side effects' than the geriatrician (p < 0.050), while the geriatrician did on 'medication without indication' (p < 0.001). The Clinical Decision Support System noted significantly more remarks on 'contraindication/interaction/side effects' and 'therapeutic drug monitoring' than the outpatient pharmacist, whereas the outpatient pharmacist reported more on 'indication without medication' and 'medication without indication' than the Clinical Decision Support System (p ≤ 0.007). Conclusion Medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System provides different insights and should be combined to create a more comprehensive report on medication profiles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.