ArticleBMJ open2024
Association between continuity of care and inappropriate prescribing in outpatient care in Germany: a cross-sectional analysis conducted as part of the LoChro trial.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. 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.
- Factors associated with potentially inappropriate medication use, medication underuse and overuse in older adults in the German National Cohort.Journal of internal medicine · 2026Article
- Categorizing continuity of care measures and why you have (probably) been doing it wrong: a methodological discussion and recommendations for researchers.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPotentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) are common in multimorbid patients. This study aims to describe PIMs and PPOs in an open-access outpatient setting and to investigate any association between continuity of care (CoC) and PIMs and PPOs in multimorbid older patients.
designCross-sectional study using patient-confirmed outpatient medication plans to describe PIMs and PPOs using the 'Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescription/Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment' version 2. Four Poisson regressions modelled the number of PIMs and PPOs using context-adapted versions of the Usual Provider of Care (UPC) and the Modified Modified Continuity Index (MMCI) as measures for CoC.
settingSouthern Germany, outpatient setting.
participants321 participants of the LoChro-trial at 12-month follow-up (both arms). The LoChro-trial compared healthcare involving an additional care manager with usual care. Inclusion criteria were age over 64, local residence and scoring over one in the Identification of Older patients at Risk Screening Tool. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Numbers of PIMs and PPOs.
resultsThe mean number of PIMs was 1.5 (SD 1.5), lower than the average number of PPOs at 2.9 (SD 1.7). CoC showed similar results for both indices with a mean of 0.548 (SD 0.279) for MMCI and 0.514 (SD 0.262) for UPC. Both models predicting PPOs indicated more PPOs with higher CoC; statistical significance was only demonstrated for MMCI (MMCI~PPO: Exp(B)=1.42, 95% CI (1.11; 1.81), p=0.004; UPC~PPO: Exp(B)=1.29, 95% CI (0.99; 1.67), p=0.056). No significant association between PIMs and CoC was found (MMCI~PIM: Exp(B)=0.72, 95% CI (0.50; 1.03), p=0.072; UPC~PIM: Exp(B)=0.83, 95% CI (0.57; 1.21), p=0.337).
conclusionThe results did not show a significant association between higher CoC and lesser PIMs. Remarkably, an association between increased CoC, represented through MMCI, and more PPOs was found. Consultation of different care providers in open-access healthcare systems could possibly ameliorate under-prescribing in multimorbid older patients.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): DRKS00013904.
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.