ArticlePloS one2022
Bedside medication review with cognitive and depression screening by a clinical pharmacist as part of a comprehensive geriatric assessment in hospitalized older patients with polypharmacy: A pilot study.
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 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A qualitative exploration of healthcare professionals' perspectives on the role of pharmacists in screening older adults for depression during medication reviews.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Implementation of hospital-initiated complex interventions for adult people with multiple long-term conditions: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Systematic literature review of the impact of psychiatric pharmacists.The mental health clinician · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPolypharmacy is highly prevalent in older patients with multimorbidity and is associated with increased risk of adverse drug events. This pilot study investigated the added value of a bedside medication review with cognitive and depression screening by a clinical pharmacist to identify potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and medication use issues in older patients with polypharmacy. METHODS AND
resultsIn the period from September 2018 to March 2019, a clinical pharmacist took part in the comprehensive geriatric assessment of 37 older patients hospitalized at Antwerp University Hospital and conducted a medication review consisting of a record review, a bedside interview questionnaire covering medication use, evaluation of cognitive function (abbreviated MMSE), depression (GDS-4), and systematic check for possible PIMs (STOPP/START criteria). Patients were 83±4 years old and on a median of 12 home medications (range 5-20). The clinical pharmacist formulated an average of 7.7 recommendations to optimize medication use per patient, of which 89.9% were considered clinically relevant by the geriatrician. Only 2 out of 286 PIMs were discovered during routine electronic validation of medication prescriptions. Supervision of medication intake was absent in 75% of cognitively impaired patients, but advice to do so was implemented in 86.4% of cases. The multidisciplinary geriatric advice was communicated to the treating physician, who fully implemented 33.8% of the recommendations.
conclusionsBedside medication review with cognitive and depression screening by a clinical pharmacist is useful to discover polypharmacy related problems and medication intake issues in a population of geriatric patients. Systematic screening for cognitive impairment and depression are needed to detect patients in need of support for correct medication use and therapy compliance.
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.