ArticleBMJ open2019
Utilisation of medications among elderly patients in intensive care units: a cross-sectional study using a nationwide claims database.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Medication Appropriateness and Potentially Inappropriate Medications in Older Critical Care Patients: A Scoping Review.Drugs & aging · 2026Review
- Sedation for moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Effect of remimazolam besylate versus midazolam on time to extubation in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Conducting and Reporting a Clinical Research Using Korean Healthcare Claims Database.Korean journal of family medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesClinical practice guidelines for the management of pain and sedation in critically ill patients have been developed and applied; however, there is limited data on medication use among elderly patients. This study identifies current practice patterns for analgo-sedative use in mechanically ventilated elderly patients in Korea using a national claims database.
designCross-sectional study. SETTING AND
participantsVentilated elderly patients aged 65 years or older in intensive care units (ICUs) from an aged patients' national claims database in Korea PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Use of sedatives including benzodiazepines, opioids and non-opioid analgesics, neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) and antipsychotic drugs were analysed by the duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), age and time.
resultsFrom 2012 to 2016, 22 677 elderly patients underwent MV in 267 general or tertiary ICUs. Mean age was 77.2 (±6.9) years and the median duration of MV was 4.1 days; 77.2% of patients received sedatives, 65.0% analgesics, 29.1% NMBAs and 19.6% antipsychotics. Midazolam (62.0%) was the most commonly prescribed medication. The proportions of sedatives, analgesics and NMBAs increased, whereas the percentages of person-days decreased with longer MV duration (p<0.01). With advanced age, the prevalence and duration of sedative, analgesic and NMBA use decreased (adjusted OR (95% CI) 0.98 (0.97 to 0.98) in all three classes) while antipsychotic did not (adjusted OR 1.00 (1.00-1.01)). Annually, benzodiazepines showed reduced administration (76.2% in 2012 and 71.4% in 2016, p<0.01), while daily opioid dose increased (21.6 in 2012 vs 30.0 mg in 2016, p<0.01).
conclusionsThe prevalence of sedative, analgesic and NMBAs use and daily opioid doses were lower, whereas antipsychotic use was higher compared with those in previous studies in adult patients. The findings warrant further studies investigating appropriateness and safety of medication use that consider clinical severity scores with a focus on elderly patients in ICUs.
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.