Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31724956›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2019

Reducing Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions for Older Patients Using Computerized Decision Support Tools: Systematic Review.

Luís Monteiro, Tiago Maricoto, Isabel Solha, Inês Ribeiro-Vaz, Carlos Martins, Matilde Monteiro-Soares

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Luís MonteiroEsgueira+ Family Health Unit, Aveiro Healthcare Centre, Aveiro, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-0784-5770
Tiago MaricotoAveiro-Aradas Family Health Unit, Aveiro Healthcare Centre, Aveiro, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-4201-9565
Isabel SolhaTerras de Souza Family Health Unit, Paredes, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-2656-3480
Inês Ribeiro-VazCenter for Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-3442-8158
Carlos MartinsCenter for Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-8561-5167
Matilde Monteiro-SoaresCenter for Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-4586-2910

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOlder adults are more vulnerable to polypharmacy and prescriptions of potentially inappropriate medications. There are several ways to address polypharmacy to prevent its occurrence. We focused on computerized decision support tools.

objectiveThe available literature was reviewed to understand whether computerized decision support tools reduce potentially inappropriate prescriptions or potentially inappropriate medications in older adult patients and affect health outcomes.

methodsOur systematic review was conducted by searching the literature in the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases for interventional studies published through February 2018 to assess the impact of computerized decision support tools on potentially inappropriate medications and potentially inappropriate prescriptions in people aged 65 years and older.

resultsA total of 3756 articles were identified, and 16 were included. More than half (n=10) of the studies were randomized controlled trials, one was a crossover study, and five were pre-post intervention studies. A total of 266,562 participants were included; of those, 233,144 participants were included and assessed in randomized controlled trials. Intervention designs had several different features. Computerized decision support tools consistently reduced the number of potentially inappropriate prescriptions started and mean number of potentially inappropriate prescriptions per patient. Computerized decision support tools also increased potentially inappropriate prescriptions discontinuation and drug appropriateness. However, in several studies, statistical significance was not achieved. A meta-analysis was not possible due to the significant heterogeneity among the systems used and the definitions of outcomes.

conclusionsComputerized decision support tools may reduce potentially inappropriate prescriptions and potentially inappropriate medications. More randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of computerized decision support tools that could be used both in primary and secondary health care are needed to evaluate the use of medication targets defined by the Beers or STOPP (Screening Tool of Older People's Prescriptions) criteria, adverse drug reactions, quality of life measurements, patient satisfaction, and professional satisfaction with a reasonable follow-up, which could clarify the clinical usefulness of these tools.

trial registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42017067021; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017067021.

Indexed as

Drug DesignAgedCross-Over StudiesDecision Support TechniquesHumansInappropriate PrescribingMalePotentially Inappropriate Medication ListQuality of Lifecomputerized decision supportdeprescriptionsmedical informatics applicationspotentially inappropriate medicationpotentially inappropriate prescription

Identifiers

PMID31724956
PMCPMC6883366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.