Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36173988›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Applicability of tools to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing in elderly during medication review: Comparison of STOPP/START version 2, Beers 2019, EU(7)-PIM list, PRISCUS list, and Amsterdam tool-A pilot study.

Agnieszka Lisowska, Edyta Czepielewska, Martyna Rydz, Anna Dworakowska, Magdalena Makarewicz-Wujec, Małgorzata Kozłowska-Wojciechowska

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Agnieszka LisowskaFaculty of Pharmacy, Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Care, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Edyta CzepielewskaFaculty of Pharmacy, Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Care, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-3149-239X
Martyna RydzFaculty of Pharmacy, Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Care, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Anna DworakowskaFaculty of Pharmacy, Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Care, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Magdalena Makarewicz-WujecFaculty of Pharmacy, Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Care, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-4330-3007
Małgorzata Kozłowska-WojciechowskaFaculty of Pharmacy, Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Care, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Medical University of Warsaw · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is one of the major risk factors of adverse drug events in elderly patients. Pharmacotherapy assessment criteria may help reduce the instances of PIP among geriatric patients. This study aimed to verify the applicability of selected tools designed to assess prescribing appropriateness in elderly and to identify PIP in the study population. Based on pharmacist-led medication reviews that were performed among patients attending senior day-care centers based in Poland, aged 65 years and over, the following tools were applied for assessing the appropriateness of pharmacotherapy: PILA (patient-in-focus listing approach): STOPP/START v.2 and Amsterdam tool, DOLA (drug-oriented listing approach): PRISCUS list, and DOLA+: Beers criteria v.2019 and the EU(7)-PIM list-the criteria oriented on medications requiring indications. Fifty patients participated in the study. The prevalence of prescribing issues in the study population was very high and ranged from 28% to 100%, depending on the criteria applied. The highest number of PIP cases was identified based on the PILA criteria: STOPP/START v.2 (171, a mean of 3.4 PIP cases per patient), and the Amsterdam criteria (124, a mean of 2.5 PIP cases per patient). The lack of protective vaccinations against pneumococci identified using the START criterion was found to be the most common PIP (identified in 96% of the patients). Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) were identified as the most problematic group of medications. The STOPP, EU(7)-PIM and Beers criteria revealed cases of inappropriate prolonged PPI use, whereas the Amsterdam tool identified cases where PPIs should have been prescribed but were not. The highest number of PIP cases in the study population were identified with the PILA tools, and on this basis the most comprehensive assessment of pharmacotherapy appropriateness in geriatric patients was conducted. Further studies should be designed, covering a larger group of patients across different healthcare settings (inpatient and outpatient), with access to comprehensive patient data.

Indexed as

Inappropriate PrescribingPotentially Inappropriate Medication ListAgedHumansMedication ReviewPilot ProjectsProton Pump InhibitorsProton Pump Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID36173988
PMCPMC9521918
OpenAlexW4297991547

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.