ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2022
Comparative analysis of PIM criteria and drug labels in the elderly.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBy discussing the corresponding situation of PIM criteria and labels, it provides a reference for the formulation and update of the criteria and the content of the section of "medications for the elderly" in the labels, so as to realize rational drug use for the elderly.
methodsExtract the four indicators of Beers criteria, STOPP criteria, and the EU(7)-PIM list that involve dosage, duration, age, and mortality, and compare them with the latest labels for drugs marketed in the USA and the EU.
resultsThere are 148 drugs involving four indicators in the criteria, and 85.14% of the drugs are found in at least one region. In terms of dose, there are 28 drugs with inconsistent descriptions in the labels of the two regions, accounting for 47.46% of the 59 drugs found in both regions. A total of 42.37% of the drugs are consistent in both regions with the criteria (25/59), 28.81% of the drugs are inconsistent in both regions with the criteria (17/59), and 28.81% of the drugs are inconsistent in only one region with the criteria (17/59). The doses of 50 drugs found in F/D labels are consistent with the criteria, accounting for 54.35% of the 92 drugs found in F/D labels, and of 41 drugs found in E/H SmPC are consistent with the criteria, accounting for 60.29% of the 68 drugs found in E/H SmPC. Only the duration of omeprazole in the labels in both regions is consistent with the criteria, and only the age of prasugrel in both regions is consistent with the criteria. Five drugs whose labels mentioned increased mortality, accounting for 38.46% of the 13 drugs found in both regions.
conclusionThere are certain differences between PIM criteria and PIM criteria, labels and labels, and PIM criteria and labels, which will affect the use of drugs in the elderly. Therefore, the unity between the criteria and labels should be strengthened to provide more instructive guidance for the elderly, so as to jointly realize rational drug use in the elderly.
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.