Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36689445›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Anticholinergic burden measures, symptoms, and fall-associated risk in older adults with polypharmacy: Development and validation of a prognostic model.

Truc Sophia Dinh, Andreas D Meid, Henrik Rudolf, Maria-Sophie Brueckle, Ana I González-González, Veronika Bencheva, Matthias Gogolin, Kym I E Snell, Petra J M Elders, Petra A Thuermann and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Anticholinergic Medication Burden Scales: A Systematic Review.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

19 authors.

Truc Sophia DinhInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9774-6751
Andreas D MeidDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Henrik RudolfDepartment of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Maria-Sophie BrueckleInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Ana I González-GonzálezInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Veronika BenchevaHELIOS University Clinic Wuppertal, Philipp Klee-Institute for Clinical Pharmacology, University of Witten / Herdecke, Witten, Germany.
Matthias GogolinHELIOS University Clinic Wuppertal, Philipp Klee-Institute for Clinical Pharmacology, University of Witten / Herdecke, Witten, Germany.
Kym I E SnellCentre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom.
Petra J M EldersAmsterdam UMC, General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5907-7219
Petra A ThuermannHELIOS University Clinic Wuppertal, Philipp Klee-Institute for Clinical Pharmacology, University of Witten / Herdecke, Witten, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9724-1422
Norbert Donner-BanzhoffDepartment of General Practice / Family Medicine, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Jeanet W BlomDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Marjan van den AkkerInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1022-8637
Ferdinand M GerlachInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Sebastian HarderInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Ulrich ThiemDepartment of Geriatrics, Immanuel Albertinen Diakonie, Albertinen-Haus, Hamburg, Germany.
Paul P GlasziouFaculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, QLD, Australia.
Walter E HaefeliDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0672-6876
Christiane MuthInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnticholinergic burden has been associated with adverse outcomes such as falls. To date, no gold standard measure has been identified to assess anticholinergic burden, and no conclusion has been drawn on which of the different measure algorithms best predicts falls in older patients from general practice. This study compared the ability of five measures of anticholinergic burden to predict falls. To account for patients' individual susceptibility to medications, the added predictive value of typical anticholinergic symptoms was further quantified in this context. METHODS AND

findingsTo predict falls, models were developed and validated based on logistic regression models created using data from two German cluster-randomized controlled trials. The outcome was defined as "≥ 1 fall" vs. "no fall" within a 6-month follow-up period. Data from the RIME study (n = 1,197) were used in model development, and from PRIMUM (n = 502) for external validation. The models were developed step-wise in order to quantify the predictive ability of anticholinergic burden measures, and anticholinergic symptoms. In the development set, 1,015 patients had complete data and 188 (18.5%) experienced ≥ 1 fall within the 6-month follow-up period. The overall predictive value of the five anticholinergic measures was limited, with neither the employed anticholinergic variable (binary / count / burden), nor dose-dependent or dose-independent measures differing significantly in their ability to predict falls. The highest c-statistic was obtained using the German Anticholinergic Burden Score (0.73), whereby the optimism-corrected c-statistic was 0.71 after interval validation using bootstrapping and 0.63 in the external validation. Previous falls and dizziness / vertigo had the strongest prognostic value in all models.

conclusionsThe ability of anticholinergic burden measures to predict falls does not appear to differ significantly, and the added value they contribute to risk classification in fall-prediction models is limited. Previous falls and dizziness / vertigo contributed most to model performance.

Indexed as

Cholinergic AntagonistsDizzinessAgedHumansPolypharmacyPrognosisVertigoCholinergic Antagonists

Identifiers

PMID36689445
PMCPMC9870119

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.