Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32440104›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2020

Medication Evaluation in Portuguese Elderly Patients According to Beers, STOPP/START Criteria and EU(7)-PIM List - An Exploratory Study.

Cristina Monteiro, Catarina Canário, Manuel Ângelo Ribeiro, Ana Paula Duarte, Gilberto Alves

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cristina MonteiroUFBI - Pharmacovigilance Unit of Beira Interior, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-5225-6222
Catarina CanárioCICS-UBI - Health Sciences Research Centre, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal.
Manuel Ângelo RibeiroAssociação de Socorros Mútuos-Mutualista Covilhanense, Covilhã, Portugal.
Ana Paula DuarteUFBI - Pharmacovigilance Unit of Beira Interior, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal.
Gilberto AlvesUFBI - Pharmacovigilance Unit of Beira Interior, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-4213-0714
University of Beira Interior · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe increase in drug prescription for the elderly raises the risk of the occurrence of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), thus increasing the incidence of drug-related problems. Likewise, potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) are also highly prevalent in the elderly. This study aimed at assessing the prevalence of PIMs in the elderly by using the EU(7)-PIM list, STOPP criteria version 2 and the Beers criteria version 2015, as well as the prevalence of PPOs by applying the START criteria version 2 in elderly nursing home residents and outpatients of the Eastern Central Region of Portugal. PATIENTS AND

methodsA descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out in a sample of 90 Portuguese elderly people. Age, gender, diagnoses and medication history were collected from the patients' clinical records. The prevalence of PIMs and PPOs was measured according to each of the criteria applied.

resultsThe patients' ages ranged from 65 to 103 years, with an average age of 84.15 years. In addition, the average number of medications prescribed was 7.6. The STOPP criteria identified 250 PIMs affecting 77 patients (85.5%), the EU(7)-PIM list detected 94 PIMs in 58 patients (64.4%) and the Beers criteria identified 69 PIMs in 51 patients (56.6%). Therefore, the STOPP criteria version 2 identified substantially more PIMs than the other two tools. Furthermore, by applying the START criteria 68 PPOs were detected in 52 patients (57.7%).

conclusionA high prevalence of PIMs and PPOs was observed, suggesting the need to implement actions aimed at reducing the phenomenon and thus help to improve the quality of care provided in nursing homes. The variations in prevalence with the different tools suggest the need to carefully choose the tool for medication review in the elderly.

Indexed as

Beers criteria version 2015elderlyEU(7)-PIM listpotentially inappropriate medicationspotential prescribing omissionsSTOPP/START criteria version 2

Identifiers

PMID32440104
PMCPMC7211315
OpenAlexW3021795322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.