Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32126005›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2020

Use of an Electronic Clinical Decision Support System in Primary Care to Assess Inappropriate Polypharmacy in Young Seniors With Multimorbidity: Observational, Descriptive, Cross-sectional Study.

Eloisa Rogero-Blanco, Juan A López-Rodríguez, Teresa Sanz-Cuesta, Mercedes Aza-Pascual-Salcedo, M Jose Bujalance-Zafra, Isabel Cura-González, MultiPAP Group

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Polypharmacy and precision medicine.Cambridge prisms. Precision medicine · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Eloisa Rogero-Blanco *General Ricardos Primary Health Care Centre, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8732-6120
Juan A López-Rodríguez *General Ricardos Primary Health Care Centre, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4985-2314
Teresa Sanz-Cuesta *Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network (REDISSEC), Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8791-8030
Mercedes Aza-Pascual-Salcedo *Dirección Farmacia Atención Primaria Sector Zaragoza III, Zaragoza, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8937-5559
M Jose Bujalance-Zafra *Dirección Unidad Gestión Clínica Victoria en Málaga, Servicio Andaluz de Salud, Málaga, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4342-5530
Isabel Cura-González *Medical Specialties and Public Health, School of Health Sciences, University Rey Juan Carlos, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3931-5304
MultiPAP Group *Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network (REDISSEC), Madrid, Spain.
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos · ESAndalusian Health Service · ESSpanish Clinical Research Network · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultimorbidity is a global health problem that is usually associated with polypharmacy, which increases the risk of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP). PIP entails higher hospitalization rates and mortality and increased usage of services provided by the health system. Tools exist to improve prescription practices and decrease PIP, including screening tools and explicit criteria that can be applied in an automated manner.

objectiveThis study aimed to describe the prevalence of PIP in primary care consultations among patients aged 65-75 years with multimorbidity and polypharmacy, detected by an electronic clinical decision support system (ECDSS) following the 2015 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria, the European Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescription (STOPP), and the Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START).

methodsThis was an observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study. The sample included 593 community-dwelling adults aged 65-75 years (henceforth called young seniors), with multimorbidity (≥3 diseases) and polypharmacy (≥5 medications), who had visited their primary care doctor at least once over the last year at 1 of the 38 health care centers participating in the Multimorbidity and Polypharmacy in Primary Care (Multi-PAP) trial. Sociodemographic data, clinical and pharmacological treatment variables, and PIP, as detected by 1 ECDSS, were recorded. A multivariate logistic regression model with robust estimators was built to assess the factors affecting PIP according to the STOPP criteria.

resultsPIP was detected in 57.0% (338/593; 95% CI 53-61) and 72.8% (432/593; 95% CI 69.3-76.4) of the patients according to the STOPP criteria and the Beers Criteria, respectively, whereas 42.8% (254/593; 95% CI 38.9-46.8) of the patients partially met the START criteria. The most frequently detected PIPs were benzodiazepines (BZD) intake for more than 4 weeks (217/593, 36.6%) using the STOPP version 2 and the prolonged use of proton pump inhibitors (269/593, 45.4%) using the 2015 Beers Criteria. Being a woman (odds ratio [OR] 1.43, 95% CI 1.01-2.01; P=.04), taking a greater number of medicines (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14-1.37; P<.001), working in the primary sector (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.25-2.93; P=.003), and being prescribed drugs for the central nervous system (OR 3.75, 95% CI 2.45-5.76; P<.001) were related to a higher frequency of PIP.

conclusionsThere is a high prevalence of PIP in primary care as detected by an ECDSS in community-dwelling young seniors with comorbidity and polypharmacy. The specific PIP criteria defined by this study are consistent with the current literature. This ECDSS can be useful for supervising prescriptions in primary health care consultations.

Indexed as

clinical decision support systemsmultimorbiditypolypharmacypotentially inappropriate medication listprimary care

Identifiers

PMID32126005
PMCPMC7078622
OpenAlexW2995861016

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.