Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32576947›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Differences in the prescribing of potentially inappropriate medicines in older Australians: comparison of community dwelling and residential aged care residents.

Hosam Bony, Renae A Lloyd, Elizabeth D Hotham, Lauren J Corre, Megan E Corlis, Helen A Loffler, Gregory K Scarlett, Jacquie M Tsimbinos, Ian P Todd, Vijayaprakash Suppiah

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Medication-Related Complaints in Residential Aged Care.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hosam BonyUniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Renae A LloydUniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Elizabeth D HothamUniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Lauren J CorreUniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Megan E CorlisHelping Hand Organisation, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Helen A LofflerHelping Hand Organisation, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Gregory K ScarlettHaddad Pharmacy Group, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Jacquie M TsimbinosTerryWhite Chemmart Pharmacy, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Ian P ToddPharmacy Guild of Australia, South Australian Branch, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Vijayaprakash SuppiahUniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia. vijay.suppiah@unisa.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5496-935X
University of South Australia · AUPharmacy Guild of Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) can contribute to morbidity through exacerbations or progression of existing conditions among older people. In order to characterize the prevalence of PIMs according to the Beers Criteria in older Australians, three hundred and eleven participants were recruited from three residential aged care facilities (RACFs) and two hundred and twenty participants from three community pharmacies in South Australia for a retrospective audit of medication administration charts and community pharmacy dispensing histories. Although a similar number of participants were prescribed at least one PIM (P = 0.09), the average number of PIMs was significantly greater in the RACF cohort (1.96 vs 1.26, P < 0.05). Additionally, PIMs prescribed as pro re nata (PRN) in the RACF cohort had a significantly low administration rate compared to prescription rate (19.7% vs 40.7%). The mean number of PIMs within each cohort was statistically significant (RACF = 1.93 vs CDOA = 1.26, P < 0.05). RACF residents were at a slightly greater risk of being prescribed more than one PIM compared to those within the community. Routine medication reviews by pharmacists embedded in RACFs and within the community could be utilised to detect PIMs before such harm occurs.

Indexed as

Homes for the AgedIndependent LivingQuality of Health CareResidential FacilitiesAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsFemaleHumansInappropriate PrescribingMalePotentially Inappropriate Medication ListPrevalenceSouth Australia

Identifiers

PMID32576947
PMCPMC7311470
OpenAlexW3036598124

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.