Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34939917›Full record

Trial reportDeutsches Arzteblatt international2021

Reduction of Potentially Inappropriate Medication in the Elderly.

Henrik Rudolf, Ulrich Thiem, Kaysa Aust, Dietmar Krause, Renate Klaaßen-Mielke, Wolfgang Greiner, Hans J Trampisch, Nina Timmesfeld, Petra Thürmann, Eike Hackmann and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. [Concepts to improve medication safety in older patients].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  9. [Why represcribing instead of deprescribing?]Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Henrik RudolfDepartment of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Ruhr University Bochum; Chair of Geriatrics and Gerontology, University Medical Centre Eppendorf, Hamburg; Centre of Geriatrics and Gerontology, Albertinen-Haus, Hamburg; Institute for General Practice (ifam), Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf; Institute for General Practice, Hannover Medical School, Hannover; School of Public Health, University Bielefeld; Philipp Klee-Institute for Clinical Pharmacology, Helios University Hospital Wuppertal, Chair of Clinical Pharmacology, University Witten/Herdecke, Wuppertal; Institute for Biostatistics and Informatics in Medicine and Ageing, Rostock University Medical Center.
Ulrich Thiem
Kaysa Aust
Dietmar Krause
Renate Klaaßen-Mielke
Wolfgang Greiner
Hans J Trampisch
Nina Timmesfeld
Petra Thürmann
Eike Hackmann
Tanja Barkhausen
Ulrike Junius-Walker
Stefan Wilm
Universität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedications with an unfavorable risk-benefit profile in the elderly, and for which there are safer alternatives, are designated as potentially inappropriate medications (PIM). The RIME trial (Reduction of Potentially Inappropriate Medication in the Elderly) was based on PRISCUS, a list of PIM that was developed in 2010 for the German pharmaceuticals market. In this trial, it was studied whether special training and the PRISCUS card could lessen PIM and undesired drug-drug interactions (DDI) among elderly patients in primary care.

methodsA three-armed, cluster-randomized, controlled trial was carried out in two regions of Germany. 137 primary care practices were randomized in equal numbers to one of two intervention groups-in which either the primary care physicians alone or the entire practice team received special training-or to a control group with general instructions about medication. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with at least one PIM or DDI (PIM/DDI) per practice. The primary hypothesis was that at 1 year this endpoint would be more effectively lowered in the intervention groups compared to the control group.

resultsAmong 1138 patients regularly taking more than five drugs, 453 (39.8%) had at least one PIM/DDI at the beginning of the trial. The percent - ages of PIM/DDI at the beginning of the trial and 1 year later were 43.0% and 41.3% in the intervention groups and 37.0% and 37.6% in the control group. The estimated intervention effect of any intervention (69 practices) versus control (68 practices) was 2.3% (p = 0.36), while that of team training (35 practices) versus physician training (34 practices) was 4.3% (p = 0.22).

conclusionThe interventions in the RIME trial did not significantly lower the percentage of patients with PIM or DDI.

Indexed as

PhysiciansPotentially Inappropriate Medication ListAgedGermanyHumansInappropriate PrescribingPolypharmacyRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID34939917
PMCPMC8962504
OpenAlexW4200497634

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.