Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36175740›Full record

Trial reportDrugs & aging2022

Impact of Pharmaceutical Interventions with STOPP/START and PIM-Check in Older Hospitalized Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Akram Farhat, Amal Al-Hajje, Pierre-Olivier Lang, Chantal Csajka

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Drugs & aging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04028583 (Tool for Inappropriate Prescription Evaluation), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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.

NCT04028583 naunknown statusnot on this map

Tool for Inappropriate Prescription Evaluation: The TaIPE Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorCentre Hospitalier Universitaire VaudoisRan2018 to 2019Enrolled464ConditionsInappropriate PrescribingArmsPIM-Check, STOPP/START
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Deprescribing: Reducing Harm, Enhancing Care.Rambam Maimonides medical journal · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Akram FarhatCenter for Research and Innovation in Clinical Pharmaceutical Sciences, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. akram.farhat@hotmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-8662-1083
Amal Al-HajjeClinical and Epidemiological Research Laboratory, Faculty of Pharmacy, Lebanese University, Hadat, Lebanon.
Pierre-Olivier LangGenolier Clinic, Genolier, Switzerland.
Chantal CsajkaCenter for Research and Innovation in Clinical Pharmaceutical Sciences, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
University of Geneva · CHClinique de Genolier · CHLebanese University · LB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPharmaceutical interventions can reduce negative outcomes related to potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs).

objectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the impact of interventions on the reduction of PIPs and on different clinical outcomes using two electronic explicit tools.

methodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted in patients hospitalized between 2018 and 2019 at the Acute Care for Elders unit at Lausanne University Hospital in Switzerland. A medication review was conducted using PIM-Check in the first arm and STOPP/START in the second arm. Proposed interventions were communicated to the physicians. Clinical outcomes evaluated were incidence of falls, delirium, activities of daily living (ADL), length of stay, number of drugs at discharge and hospital readmission.

resultsThe 123 included patients (60 in the first arm and 63 in the second arm) were 86.3 ± 6.6 years old, had 3.5 ± 1.7 diseases and were treated by 6.2 ± 2.7 drugs at admission. There was a significant decrease in PIPs in each arm, but no significant difference between arms. The deprescription of nervous system drugs was significantly higher with STOPP/START than with PIM-Check (Chi-square p = 0.025). ADL scores between home and discharge were significantly higher in the STOPP/START arm than in the PIM-Check arm (4.42 vs 3.77; p = 0.040). The predictors of ADL score improvement were the deprescription of nervous system drugs (β = 0.423; 95% CI 0.034-0.812; p = 0.033), the use of STOPP/START (β = 0.798, 95% CI 0.305-1.290; p = 0.002) and a shorter length of hospital stay (β = -0.033, 95% CI - 0.056 to - 0.010; p = 0.005).

conclusionsAlthough PIM-Check was non-inferior to STOPP/START in reducing the number of PIPs, STOPP/START had a significantly higher impact on ADL. The use of STOPP/START or the deprescription of two nervous system drugs would allow the patient to acquire almost one more basic function of living. On the other hand, a loss of one point on the ADL score was observed per month of hospitalization. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04028583.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingPotentially Inappropriate Medication ListAgedAged, 80 and overHumansInappropriate PrescribingPatient DischargePharmaceutical PreparationsPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID36175740
PMCPMC9626411
OpenAlexW4297978025

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.