Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33269418›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2021

Potentially inappropriate prescribing in older hospitalized Dutch patients according to the STOPP/START criteria v2: a longitudinal study.

Birgit A Damoiseaux-Volman, Stephanie Medlock, Kimmy Raven, Danielle Sent, Johannes A Romijn, Nathalie van der Velde, Ameen Abu-Hanna

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

Article 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 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Birgit A Damoiseaux-VolmanAmsterdam UMC, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. b.a.damoiseaux@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2779-8211
Stephanie MedlockAmsterdam UMC, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Kimmy RavenAmsterdam UMC, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Danielle SentAmsterdam UMC, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Johannes A RomijnAmsterdam UMC, Department of Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nathalie van der VeldeAmsterdam UMC, Section of Geriatric Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ameen Abu-HannaAmsterdam UMC, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate prevalence, independent associations, and variation over time of potentially inappropriate prescriptions in a population of older hospitalized patients.

methodsA longitudinal study using a large dataset of hospital admissions of older patients (≥ 70 years) based on an electronic health records cohort including data from 2015 to 2019. Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) and potential prescribing omission (PPO) prevalence during hospital stay were identified based on the Dutch STOPP/START criteria v2. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used for analyzing associations and trends over time.

resultsThe data included 16,687 admissions. Of all admissions, 56% had ≥ 1 PIM and 58% had ≥ 1 PPO. Gender, age, number of medications, number of diagnoses, Charlson score, and length of stay were independently associated with both PIMs and PPOs. Additionally, number of departments and number of prescribing specialties were independently associated with PIMs. Over the years, the PIM prevalence did not change (OR = 1.00, p = .95), whereas PPO prevalence increased (OR = 1.08, p < .001). However, when corrected for changes in patient characteristics such as number of diagnoses, the PIM (aOR = 0.91, p < .001) and PPO prevalence (aOR = 0.94, p < .001) decreased over the years.

conclusionWe found potentially inappropriate prescriptions in the majority of admissions of older patients. Prescribing relatively improved over time when considering complexity of the admissions. Nevertheless, the high prevalence shows a clear need to better address this issue in clinical practice. Studies seeking effective (re)prescribing interventions are warranted.

Indexed as

Academic Medical CentersAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsFemaleHealth StatusHospitalizationHumansInappropriate PrescribingLength of StayLongitudinal StudiesMaleNetherlandsPolypharmacyPotentially Inappropriate Medication ListRisk FactorsAgedHospitalInappropriate prescribingOlder patientsPolypharmacy

Identifiers

PMID33269418
PMCPMC8032616
OpenAlexW3110020778

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.