Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33011824›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2021

Quality of anticholinergic burden scales and their impact on clinical outcomes: a systematic review.

Angela Lisibach, Valérie Benelli, Marco Giacomo Ceppi, Karin Waldner-Knogler, Chantal Csajka, Monika Lutters

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

76 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 114 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Anticholinergic Medication Burden Scales: A Systematic Review.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Knowing When to Stop: Navigating Polypharmacy Training in Geriatric Psychiatry.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Angela LisibachClinical Pharmacy, Department Medical Services, Cantonal Hospital of Baden, Baden, Switzerland. angela.lisibach@ksb.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8697-492X
Valérie BenelliClinical Pharmacy, Department Medical Services, Cantonal Hospital of Baden, Baden, Switzerland.
Marco Giacomo CeppiDepartment of Neurorehabilitation, RehaClinic, Bad Zurzach, Switzerland.
Karin Waldner-KnoglerQualitätszentrum für Medikamentensicherheit, Mediq, Brugg, Switzerland.
Chantal CsajkaCenter for Research and Innovation in Clinical Pharmaceutical Sciences, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences of Western Switzerland, University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. Chantal.Csajka@chuv.ch.
Monika LuttersClinical Pharmacy, Department Medical Services, Cantonal Hospital of Baden, Baden, Switzerland.
Kantonsspital Baden · CHUniversity of Geneva · CHUniversity of Basel · CH

Funding

GSASA (Swiss Association of Public Health Administration and Hospital Pharmacists) Research project of national Scope 2017
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOlder people are at risk of anticholinergic side effects due to changes affecting drug elimination and higher sensitivity to drug's side effects. Anticholinergic burden scales (ABS) were developed to quantify the anticholinergic drug burden (ADB). We aim to identify all published ABS, to compare them systematically and to evaluate their associations with clinical outcomes.

methodsWe conducted a literature search in MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify all published ABS and a Web of Science citation (WoS) analysis to track validation studies implying clinical outcomes. Quality of the ABS was assessed using an adapted AGREE II tool. For the validation studies, we used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane tool Rob2.0. The validation studies were categorized into six evidence levels based on the propositions of the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine with respect to their quality. At least two researchers independently performed screening and quality assessments.

resultsOut of 1297 records, we identified 19 ABS and 104 validations studies. Despite differences in quality, all ABS were recommended for use. The anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale and the German anticholinergic burden scale (GABS) achieved the highest percentage in quality. Most ABS are validated, yet validation studies for newer scales are lacking. Only two studies compared eight ABS simultaneously. The four most investigated clinical outcomes delirium, cognition, mortality and falls showed contradicting results.

conclusionThere is need for good quality validation studies comparing multiple scales to define the best scale and to conduct a meta-analysis for the assessment of their clinical impact.

Indexed as

Cost of IllnessAgedAge FactorsAgingCholinergic AntagonistsCognition DisordersDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansMetabolic Clearance RateOutcome Assessment, Health CareValidation Studies as TopicCholinergic AntagonistsClinical outcomesCumulative anticholinergic burdenOlder peopleQuality assessmentValidation

Identifiers

PMID33011824
PMCPMC7803697
OpenAlexW3091490551

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.