Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34535481›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open2021

Comparison of FORTA, PRISCUS and EU(7)-PIM lists on identifying potentially inappropriate medication and its impact on cognitive function in multimorbid elderly German people in primary care: a multicentre observational study.

Caroline Krüger, Ingmar Schäfer, Hendrik van den Bussche, Horst Bickel, Tobias Dreischulte, Angela Fuchs, Hans-Helmut König, Wolfgang Maier, Karola Mergenthal, Steffi G Riedel-Heller and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. FORTA Score and Negative Outcomes in Older Adults: Insights from Italian Internal Medicine Wards.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Detecting Medication Risks among People in Need of Care: Performance of Six Instruments.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  20. 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

16 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.

Caroline KrügerHospital Pharmacy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany c.krueger@uke.de.ORCID 0000-0001-9080-1562
Ingmar SchäferDepartment of Primary Medical Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1038-7478
Hendrik van den BusscheDepartment of Primary Medical Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Horst BickelDepartment of Psychiatry, Technical University of Munich, Munchen, Germany.
Tobias DreischulteInstitute of General Practice, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Jena, Germany.
Angela FuchsInstitute of General Practice, Heinrich-Heine-Universitat Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Hans-Helmut KönigDepartment for Health Economics and Health Services Research, Universitatsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Wolfgang MaierDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Karola MergenthalInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Steffi G Riedel-HellerInstitute for Social Medicine, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
Gerhard SchönDepartment of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Siegfried WeyererMedical Faculty, Central Institute of Mental Health, Mannheim, Germany.
Birgitt WieseInstitute for General Practice, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Wolfgang von Renteln-KruseResearch Department, Albertinen-Haus Zentrum für Geriatrie und Gerontologie Medizinisch-Geriatrische Klinik, Hamburg, Germany.
Claudia LangebrakeHospital Pharmacy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Martin SchererDepartment of Primary Medical Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Universität Hamburg · DEAlbertinen Diakoniewerk · DEFriedrich Schiller University Jena · DEGoethe University Frankfurt · DEHeidelberg University · DEHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DELeipzig University · DEMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DETechnical University of Munich · DEUniversity of Bonn · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesOur study aimed to assess the frequency of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use (according to three PIM lists) and to examine the association between PIM use and cognitive function among participants in the MultiCare cohort.

designMultiCare is conducted as a longitudinal, multicentre, observational cohort study.

settingThe MultiCare study is located in eight different study centres in Germany.

participants3189 patients (59.3% female). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The study had a cross-sectional design using baseline data from the German MultiCare study. Prescribed and over-the-counter drugs were classified using FORTA (Fit fOR The Aged), PRISCUS (Latin for 'time-honoured') and EU(7)-PIM lists. A mixed-effect multivariate linear regression was performed to calculate the association between PIM use patients' cognitive function (measured with (LDST)).

resultsPatients (3189) used 2152 FORTA PIM (mean 0.9±1.03 per patient), 936 PRISCUS PIM (0.3±0.58) and 4311 EU(7)-PIM (1.4±1.29). The most common FORTA PIM was phenprocoumon (13.8%); the most prevalent PRISCUS PIM was amitriptyline (2.8%); the most common EU(7)-PIM was omeprazole (14.0%). The lists rate PIM differently, with an overall overlap of 6.6%. Increasing use of PIM is significantly associated with reduced cognitive function that was detected with a correlation coefficient of -0.60 for FORTA PIM (p=0.002), -0.72 for PRISCUS PIM (p=0.025) and -0.44 for EU(7)-PIM (p=0.005).

conclusionWe identified PIM using FORTA, PRISCUS and EU(7)-PIM lists differently and found that PIM use is associated with cognitive impairment according to LDST, whereby the FORTA list best explained cognitive decline for the German population. These findings are consistent with a negative impact of PIM use on multimorbid elderly patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN89818205.

Indexed as

Inappropriate PrescribingPotentially Inappropriate Medication ListAgedCognitionCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMalePrimary Health Careclinical pharmacologyepidemiologyprimary care

Identifiers

PMID34535481
PMCPMC8451296
OpenAlexW3199959711

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.