Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36202826›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2022

Prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in older adults in Central and Eastern Europe: a systematic review and synthesis without meta-analysis.

Jovana Brkic, Daniela Fialova, Betul Okuyan, Ingrid Kummer, Sofija Sesto, Andreas Capiau, Maja Ortner Hadziabdic, Konstantin Tachkov, Veera Bobrova

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jovana BrkicDepartment of Social and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy in Hradec Kralove, Charles University, Hradec Kralove, 500 05, Czech Republic. jovanabrkic37@gmail.com.
Daniela FialovaDepartment of Social and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy in Hradec Kralove, Charles University, Hradec Kralove, 500 05, Czech Republic.
Betul OkuyanClinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, Marmara University, Istanbul, 34668, Turkey.
Ingrid KummerDepartment of Social and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy in Hradec Kralove, Charles University, Hradec Kralove, 500 05, Czech Republic.
Sofija SestoDepartment of Social Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Legislation, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Belgrade, 11221, Belgrade, Serbia.
Andreas CapiauPharmaceutical Care Unit, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ghent University, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Maja Ortner HadziabdicCentre for Applied Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, University of Zagreb, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia.
Konstantin TachkovDepartment of Organization and Economics of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Sofia, Sofia, 1000, Bulgaria.
Veera BobrovaInstitute of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tartu, 50411, Tartu, Estonia.

Funding

Marie Curie 764632
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We aimed to systematically review the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in older adults in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) in all care settings. We searched Embase and MEDLINE (up to June 2019) and checked the reference lists of the included studies and relevant reviews. Eligible studies used validated explicit or implicit tools to assess the PIP prevalence in older adults in CEE. All study designs were considered, except case‒control studies and case series. We assessed the risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis was inappropriate due to heterogeneity in the outcome measurements. Therefore, we used the synthesis without meta-analysis approach-summarizing effect estimates method. This review included twenty-seven studies with 139,693 participants. Most studies were cross-sectional and conducted in high-income countries. The data synthesis across 26 studies revealed the PIP prevalence: the median was 34.6%, the interquartile range was 25.9-63.2%, and the range was 6.5-95.8%. The certainty of this evidence was very low due to the risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. These findings show that PIP is a prevalent issue in the CEE region. Further well-designed studies conducted across countries are needed to strengthen the existing evidence and increase the generalizability of findings.

Indexed as

Inappropriate PrescribingAgedCase-Control StudiesEuropeEurope, EasternHumansPrevalence

Identifiers

PMID36202826
PMCPMC9537527

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.