ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2023
Potentially Inappropriate Medication Dispensing in Outpatients: Comparison of Different Measurement Approaches.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification of low-value practices susceptible to gender bias in primary care setting.BMC primary care · 2024Trial
- Prevalence of Potentially Inappropriate Medications in Drug Dispensing Data of Older Adults Living in Northwest Italy.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose of the Research: This paper aims at comparing different approaches to measure potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) with routinely collected data on prescriptions, patient age institutionalization status (ie in nursing home or in the community). A secondary objective is to measure the rate and prevalence of PIM dispensing and to identify problematic practices in Switzerland. Material and Methods: The studied population includes about 90,000 insured over 17 years old from a Swiss health maintenance organization in 2019 and 2020. We computed and compared the number of PIM per patient for Beers criteria, Priscus list, Laroche, NORGEP and Prescrire approaches. We also created a composite indicator that accounts for the specificities of the Swiss context (adaptation to the Swiss drugs' market, recommendations in force related to sleeping pills, anxiolytics and NSAIDs). We also stratified the analysis per physician, including initiation and cessation of PIM prescription. Results: Our comparison revealed similarities between the approaches, but also that each of them had specific gaps that provides further motivation for the development of a composite approach. PIM rate was particularly high for sleeping pills, anxiolytics, NSAIDs, even when analyses were limited to chronic use. Drugs with anticholinergic effect were also frequently prescribed. Based on our composite indicator, 27% of insured over 64 years old received at least one PIM in 2020, and 8% received more than one. Our analyses also reveal that for sleeping pills and anxiolytics, half of the volume (or prevalence?) occurs in the <65 population. We observed strong variations between physicians and a significant proportion of new users among patients with PIM. Conclusion: Our results show that PIMs prescribing is very frequent in Switzerland and is driven mostly by a few drug categories. There is important physician variation in PIM prescribing that warrants the development of intervention targeted at high PIM-prescribers.
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.