ReviewEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2021
Appropriate use of essential medicines in the elderly: a comparison of the WHO essential medicines list and PIM criteria.
Review 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 3 papers.
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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of a multidisciplinary team intervention on medication prescription in nursing homes in Catalonia.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Comparison of the 22nd World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines with the explicit criteria for the treatment of chronicity in elderly patients.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2023Article
- Potentially inappropriate medications according to Marc, STOPP and PRISCUS criteria in a cohort of elderly HIV+ patients. The COMMPI project.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe elderly are not only threatened by bad medicines (overtreatment) but also by undertreatment with "good" medicines. Symmetry is required in any patient-centred approach to properly treat older people. The purpose of this study was to perfect the development of an EML and criteria according to the advantages of each and promote the appropriate use of essential medicines in the elderly.
methodWe compared the EML with four PIM criteria and calculated the proportion of essential medicines included in the criteria. We also summarized the rationale for including medicines in each criterion and analysed higher risk drugs and drug risks.
resultsOf essential medicines, 26% are included in at least one criterion as PIM. In 11 drug categories of the EML, more than 50% of drugs of each category are included in at least one criterion, and in four categories, all drugs are included. The potentially inappropriate essential medicines (PIEMs) for the elderly focus on cardiovascular drugs and central nervous system drugs. Fifty-nine drugs have been explicitly identified as increasing the risk of falls, increasing mortality and/or having inappropriate long-term use, and the main risk of PIEMs is falls (30.3% of PIEMs). Additionally, 17.9% of essential medicines are labelled as positive drugs in START and/or FORTA (A/B).
conclusionImproving medication information for the elderly in the EML and establishing an essential medicines list for the elderly will promote appropriate drug use in older people worldwide.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.