Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35648465›Full record

ReviewJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2022

Recommendations for outcome measurement for deprescribing intervention studies.

Elizabeth A Bayliss, Kathleen Albers, Kathy Gleason, Lisa E Pieper, Cynthia M Boyd, Noll L Campbell, Kristine E Ensrud, Shelly L Gray, Amy M Linsky, Derelie Mangin and 6 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
15.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Towards a Balanced View of Benefits and Harms in Deprescribing Trials.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025
    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 13 institutions in 4 countries.

Elizabeth A BaylissInstitute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Kathleen AlbersInstitute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Kathy GleasonInstitute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Lisa E PieperInstitute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Cynthia M BoydDivision of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Noll L CampbellDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Purdue University College of Pharmacy, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.
Kristine E EnsrudDepartment of Medicine and Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9069-3036
Shelly L GraySchool of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Amy M LinskySection of General Internal Medicine and Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Derelie ManginDepartment of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Lillian MinDivision of Geriatric and Palliative Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4149-5092
Michael W RichDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Michael A SteinmanDivision of Geriatrics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9564-9480
Justin TurnerCentre for Medicine Use and Safety, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Eduard E VasilevskisSection of Hospital Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine and Public Health, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Sascha DublinKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Kaiser Permanente · USBoston University · USJohns Hopkins University · USKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USMonash University · AURegenstrief Institute · USSan Francisco VA Medical Center · USUniversity of Michigan · USUniversity of Minnesota · USUniversity of Otago · NZUniversity of Washington · USVA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

Research Education CoreP30AG024824 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Lona Mody, RAYMOND L YUNG · 2004 to 2026
$29.2M
U.S. Deprescribing Research NetworkR24AG064025 · NIA · NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE/RES/EDU · PI BOYD, CYNTHIA MELINDA, STEINMAN, MICHAEL A. · 2019 to 2023
$9.9M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG024824NIA NIH HHS R24 AG064025
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interpreting results from deprescribing interventions to generate actionable evidence is challenging owing to inconsistent and heterogeneous outcome definitions between studies. We sought to characterize deprescribing intervention outcomes and recommend approaches to measure outcomes for future studies. A scoping literature review focused on deprescribing interventions for polypharmacy and informed a series of expert panel discussions and recommendations. Twelve experts in deprescribing research, policy, and clinical practice interventions participating in the Measures Workgroup of the US Deprescribing Research Network sought to characterize deprescribing outcomes and recommend approaches to measure outcomes for future studies. The scoping review identified 125 papers reflecting 107 deprescribing studies. Common outcomes included medication discontinuation, medication appropriateness, and a broad range of clinical outcomes potentially resulting from medication reduction. Panel recommendations included clearly defining clinically meaningful medication outcomes (e.g., number of chronic medications, dose reductions), ensuring adequate sample size and follow-up time to capture clinical outcomes resulting from medication discontinuation (e.g., quality of life [QOL]), and selecting appropriate and feasible data sources. A new conceptual model illustrates how downstream clinical outcomes (e.g., reduction in falls) should be interpreted in the context of initial changes in medication measures (e.g., reduction in mean total medications). Areas needing further development include implementation outcomes specific to deprescribing interventions and measures of adverse drug withdrawal events. Generating evidence to guide deprescribing is essential to address patient, caregiver, and clinician concerns about the benefits and harms of medication discontinuation. This article provides recommendations and an initial conceptual framework for selecting and applying appropriate intervention outcomes to support deprescribing research.

Indexed as

DeprescriptionsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansPolypharmacyQuality of Lifedeprescriptionoutcome assessmentpolypharmacy

Identifiers

PMID35648465
PMCPMC9489620
OpenAlexW4281700963

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.