Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35586116›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes research2022

Potentially Inappropriate Medications Use among Older Adults with Comorbid Diabetes and Hypertension in an Ambulatory Care Setting.

Monira Alwhaibi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. A Qualitative Study to Explore the Influence of Condition Prioritisation in People With Coexisting Diabetes and Hypertension on Medication Adherence.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Monira AlwhaibiDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3707-0582
King Saud University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to estimate the prevalence of PIMs use and its associated factors among older adults with comorbid diabetes and hypertension. Methods: A cross-sectional retrospective study was used, including 1,853 older adults (age ≥65 years) with diabetes and hypertension who visited an ambulatory care setting. The study objectives were to estimate the prevalence and factors associated with PIMs use based on the 2019 American Geriatric Society (AGS) Beers criteria. Results: Almost one out of two individuals had PIMs used, with the average number of medications taken being seven. The most commonly prescribed PIMs were the use of gastrointestinal and endocrine medications. High risk of PIMs use was among those with ischemic heart disease, anxiety, and polypharmacy. Conclusions: Given the higher PIMs use among older adults with diabetes and hypertension comorbidities, tailored strategies and interventions to minimize PIMs use in this population are warranted.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusHypertensionAgedAmbulatory CareCross-Sectional StudiesHumansInappropriate PrescribingPotentially Inappropriate Medication ListRetrospective StudiesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID35586116
PMCPMC9110241
OpenAlexW4229439966

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.