ArticleZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2020
[Potentially inappropriate medication in a German practice network-who prescribes what to whom?]
Article in Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence of Use of Potentially Inappropriate Medications Among Older Adults Worldwide: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled it
- Drug utilization in geriatric psychiatric patients in the emergency department-a cohort study under real-world conditions.Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology · 2025Article
- Trends and patterns in EU(7)-PIM prescribing to elderly patients in Germany.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPotentially inappropriate medication (PIM) carries the risk of increased drug side effects for older people. The prevalence data are known but no descriptive analyses of prescription behavior as a starting point for reducing PIM have yet been conducted.
objectiveThe aim of the study was to analyze PIM prescription in the outpatient sector and to identify risk groups where increased awareness of the issue is needed. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe basis for the investigation was the data set of the AOK Bavaria health insurance, which contains anonymized prescription data of a practice network for patients aged 65 years and older from 2010 to 2014. The Priscus list was used to identify the PIM.
resultsThere were 410,934 prescriptions during the investigation period. The prevalence of PIM was 5.60%. Family doctors prescribed 5.39% PIM and specialists for neurology, psychiatry and psychotherapy (NPP) prescribed 16.36% PIM. Regardless of the medical discipline, PIM from the drug groups psycholeptics, psychoanaleptics and antihypertensive drugs were most frequently prescribed. For men and women PIM accounted for 4.50% and 6.31%, respectively, of the prescriptions during the period. In terms of age groups older women received PIM most frequently.
conclusionIn the case of specialists for NPP a high prevalence of prescriptions for PIM could be established; however, in absolute terms family doctors prescribed significantly more PIM overall. This mainly affected women and especially those between 80 and 84 years old. In the future family doctors should be made more aware with respect to the prescription of psychopharmaceuticals and antihypertensive drugs to older women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31773247What 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.