Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36823047›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2023

Adverse drug reactions and associated patient characteristics in older community-dwelling adults: a 6-year prospective cohort study.

Ann S Doherty, Fiona Boland, Frank Moriarty, Tom Fahey, Emma Wallace

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Exploring the implementation and integration of structured medication reviews in primary care: a qualitative evaluation using normalisation process theory.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    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

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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Ann S DohertyHealth Research Board (HRB) Centre for Primary Care Research, Department of General Practice, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin.ORCID 0000-0003-4149-1574
Fiona BolandHRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Department of General Practice, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin 2, Ireland; Data Science Centre, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin.ORCID 0000-0003-3228-0046
Frank MoriartySchool of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin.ORCID 0000-0001-9838-3625
Tom FaheyHealth Research Board (HRB) Centre for Primary Care Research, Department of General Practice, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin.ORCID 0000-0003-3228-0046
Emma WallaceHRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Department of General Practice, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin; Department of General Practice, University College Cork, Cork.ORCID 0000-0002-9315-2956
Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland · IEUniversity of Medicine and Health Sciences · KNPrimary Health Care · QA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo date, research on adverse drug reactions (ADRs) has focused on secondary care, and there is a paucity of studies that have prospectively examined ADRs affecting older adults in general practice.

aimTo examine the cumulative incidence and severity of ADRs and associated patient characteristics in a sample of community-dwelling older adults. DESIGN AND

settingProspective cohort study of older adults (aged ≥70 years,

methodManual review of the participant's general practice electronic medical record, linked to the national dispensed prescription medicine database, and a detailed, self-reported patient postal questionnaire. The primary outcomes were ADR occurrence and severity over a 6-year period (2010-2016). Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models examined potential associations between patient characteristics and ADR occurrence.

resultsA total of 211 ADRs were recorded for 159 participants, resulting in a cumulative incidence of 26.9% over 6 years. The majority of ADRs detected were mild (89.1%), with the remainder classified as moderate (10.9%). Eight moderate ADRs, representing 34.8% of moderate ADRs and 3.8% of all ADRs, required an emergency hospital admission. ADRs were independently associated with female sex (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17 to 2.85;

conclusionThis prospective cohort study of ADRs in general practice shows that over one-quarter of older adults experienced an ADR over a 6-year period. Polypharmacy is independently associated with ADR risk in general practice and older adults on ≥10 drug classes should be prioritised for regular medication review.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsIndependent LivingAgedFemaleHospitalizationHumansPolypharmacyProspective StudiesRisk Factorsadverse drug reactiondrug-related side effects and adverse reactionselectronic health recordsgeneral practiceolder adultspolypharmacy

Identifiers

PMID36823047
PMCPMC9923764
OpenAlexW4307872089

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.