SynthesisScientific reports2022
Detection tools for prediction and identification of adverse drug reactions in older patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Characteristics of isoniazid-induced psychosis: a systematic review of case reports and case series.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2024Pooled it
- Trial
- Reducing Adverse Drug Reactions for Older People in the Community: Evaluating the Validity and Reliability of the ADRe Profile.Journal of nursing management · 2025Trial
- A scoping review of quality prescribing indicators, rules and criteria for primary care.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing and Potential Prescribing Omissions and Their Association with Adverse Drug Reaction-Related Hospital Admissions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Comparing prevalence and types of potentially inappropriate medications among patient groups in a post-acute and secondary care hospital.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Prevalence of Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions According to the New STOPP/START Criteria in Nursing Homes: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tools to accurately predict and detect adverse drug reactions (ADR) in elderly patients have not been developed. We aimed to identify and evaluate reports on tools that predict and detect ADR in elderly patients (≥ 60 years). In this review, we followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Databases were searched until January 2022 using key terms "elderly," "adverse drug reaction," and "detection instruments." Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, and they examined assorted interventions: STOPP/START version 1/2 (n = 10), Beers Criteria 2012 or 2015 (n = 4), Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing (STRIP) (n = 2), Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Medications (TRIM) (n = 1), Medication Risk Score (MERIS) (n = 1), Computerized alert systems (n = 1), and Norwegian General Practice-Nursing Home criteria (n = 1). The interventions affected the number of potential prescription omissions (OR, 0.50 [0.37-0.69]; p < 0.0001; four studies). No apparent reduction in the number of drug interactions within 2 months (OR, 0.84 [0.70-1.02]; p = 0.08; two studies) and mortality (OR, 0.92 [0.76-1.12]; p = 0.41; three studies) was observed. In conclusion, there is no definitive and validated assessment tool for detecting and predicting ADR in elderly patients. Thus, more research on refining existing tools or developing new ones is warranted.
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.