Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31338540›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2019

2015 Beers Criteria and STOPP v2 for detecting potentially inappropriate medication in community-dwelling older people: prevalence, profile, and risk factors.

Encarnación Blanco-Reina, Jenifer Valdellós, Lorena Aguilar-Cano, Maria Rosa García-Merino, Ricardo Ocaña-Riola, Gabriel Ariza-Zafra, Inmaculada Bellido-Estévez

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Encarnación Blanco-ReinaPharmacology and Therapeutics Department, School of Medicine, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-IBIMA, University of Málaga, Campus de Teatinos, Boulevard Louis Pasteur, 32, 29071, Málaga, Spain. eblanco@uma.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5892-5450
Jenifer ValdellósHealth District of Málaga-Guadalhorce, Málaga, Spain.
Lorena Aguilar-CanoHealth District of Málaga, Málaga, Spain.
Maria Rosa García-MerinoHealth District of Córdoba Sur, Córdoba, Spain.
Ricardo Ocaña-RiolaAndalusian School of Public Health, Granada, Spain.
Gabriel Ariza-ZafraGeriatrics Department, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Albacete, Albacete, Spain.
Inmaculada Bellido-EstévezPharmacology and Therapeutics Department, School of Medicine, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-IBIMA, University of Málaga, Campus de Teatinos, Boulevard Louis Pasteur, 32, 29071, Málaga, Spain.
Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga · ESAndalusian School of Public Health · ESComplejo Hospitalario Universitario de Albacete · ES

Funding

Consejería de Salud, Junta de Andalucía PI 0234/14
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo comparatively assess the prevalence rates of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) obtained by the former and latest versions of American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria (AGS BC) and screening tool of older person's potentially inappropriate prescriptions (STOPP), and analyze the factors of influence on PIM.

methodsCross-sectional study including 582 community-dwelling older adults over the age of 65. Sociodemographic, clinical, functional, and comprehensive drug therapy data were collected. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients receiving at least one PIM.

resultsA total of 3626 prescriptions were analyzed. PIMs were detected in 35.4% and 47.9% of patients according to the STOPP v1 and the 2012 AGS BC, respectively. This percentage rose to 54% when 2015 AGS BC were used and reached 66.8% with STOPP v2. The kappa coefficient between STOPP v2 and its former version was lower than the one between the updated Beers Criteria and their former version (0.41 vs 0.85). The agreement was good (0.65) between both latest criteria. The number of medications, psychological disorders, and insomnia were predictors of PIM. A novel finding was that bone and joint disorders increased the odds for PIM by 78%.

conclusionsThe 2015 AGS BC showed high sensitivity and good applicability to the European older patients. Both updated tools identified some pharmacological groups (benzodiazepines, PPIs, and opioids, among others) and certain health problems (insomnia, psychological disorders, and osteoarticular diseases) as factors of influence on PIM. Based on these findings, interventions aimed at promoting appropriate use of medications should be developed.

Indexed as

Independent LivingAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMalePotentially Inappropriate Medication ListRisk FactorsSpainBeers CriteriaOlder adultsPotentially inappropriate medicationsSTOPP version 2

Identifiers

PMID31338540
OpenAlexW2963552316

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.