ArticleBMC medicine2024
Deprescribing of antidepressants: development of indicators of high-risk and overprescribing using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.
Article in BMC medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-Term Antidepressant Use and Dementia Risk: A Propensity Score-Matched Study of Swiss Older Adults, with an Anticholinergic-Specific Analysis.Drugs - real world outcomes · 2026Article
- A scoping review of quality prescribing indicators, rules and criteria for primary care.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Deprescribing: Reducing Harm, Enhancing Care.Rambam Maimonides medical journal · 2026Review
- Suboptimal antidepressant use among inpatients and outpatients with symptoms of depression: a cross-sectional analysis of the POKAL core data set.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2026Article
- PACIC: patient activation and problem solving not related to age in patients with depressive symptoms.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2026Article
- Barriers and facilitators to antidepressant deprescribing - A qualitative interview study with general practitioners in Germany.The European journal of general practice · 2025Article
- Development of routine-data-compatible quality indicators for the management of osteoarthritis of the knee and hip in ambulatory care: a RAND-modified Delphi consensus process.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Exploring non-medical prescribing for patients with mental illness: a scoping review.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- Proactive Geriatric Medication Management and Deprescribing Efforts in Swiss Nursing Home Residents.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Potential deprescribing indications for antidepressants between 2012 and 2019: repeated cross-sectional analysis in two Scottish health boards.BMC medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAntidepressants are first-line medications for many psychiatric disorders. However, their widespread long-term use in some indications (e.g., mild depression and insomnia) is concerning. Particularly in older adults with comorbidities and polypharmacy, who are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions, the risks and benefits of treatment should be regularly reviewed. The aim of this consensus process was to identify explicit criteria of potentially inappropriate antidepressant use (indicators) in order to support primary care clinicians in identifying situations, where deprescribing of antidepressants should be considered.
methodsWe used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to identify the indicators of high-risk and overprescribing of antidepressants. We combined a structured literature review with a 3-round expert panel, with results discussed in moderated meetings in between rounds. Each of the 282 candidate indicators was scored on a 9-point Likert scale representing the necessity of a critical review of antidepressant continuation (1-3 = not necessary; 4-6 = uncertain; 7-9 = clearly necessary). Experts rated the indicators for the necessity of review, since decisions to deprescribe require considerations of patient risk/benefit balance and preferences. Indicators with a median necessity rating of ≥ 7 without disagreement after 3 rating rounds were accepted.
resultsThe expert panel comprised 2 general practitioners, 2 clinical pharmacologists, 1 gerontopsychiatrist, 2 psychiatrists, and 3 internists/geriatricians (total N = 10). After 3 assessment rounds, there was consensus for 37 indicators of high-risk and 25 indicators of overprescribing, where critical reviews were felt to be necessary. High-risk prescribing indicators included settings posing risks of drug-drug, drug-disease, and drug-age interactions or the occurrence of adverse drug reactions. Indicators with the highest ratings included those suggesting the possibility of cardiovascular risks (QTc prolongation), delirium, gastrointestinal bleeding, and liver injury in specific patient subgroups with additional risk factors. Overprescribing indicators target patients with long treatment durations for depression, anxiety, and insomnia as well as high doses for pain and insomnia.
conclusionsExplicit indicators of antidepressant high-risk and overprescribing may be used directly by patients and health care providers, and integrated within clinical decision support tools, in order to improve the overall risk/benefit balance of this commonly prescribed class of prescription drugs.
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.