ArticleBMC geriatrics2024
Medication-based profiling of older orthopedic patients: a multicenter cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundManaging medication use in older orthopedic patients is imperative to extend their healthy life expectancy in an aging society. However, the actual situation regarding polypharmacy, the intake of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), and fall risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs) among older orthopedic patients is not well characterized. This study aimed to investigate the medication-based profiles of older orthopedic patients to highlight the critical points of concern.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of consecutive patients aged ≥ 65 years who underwent orthopedic surgery at two acute care hospitals between April 2020 and March 2021. The cutoff number of prescribed drugs for polypharmacy was set at 6. According to the specified guidelines, 19 categories of drugs were identified as PIMs, and 10 categories were classified as FRIDs.
resultsA total of 995 older patients with orthopedic surgery were assessed, of which 57.4% were diagnosed with polypharmacy, 66.0% were receiving PIMs, and 41.7% were receiving FRIDs. The prevalence of FRID intake did not significantly differ among patients with degenerative spinal disease (n = 316), degenerative disease of extremities (n = 331), and fractures (n = 272). Compared with patients with degenerative disease of the extremities, the multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) of polypharmacy and PIM intake were significantly higher in patients with degenerative spinal disease (1.26 [confidence intervals (CI): 1.11-1.44] and 1.12 [CI: 1.00-1.25]), respectively. Use of antiemetic drugs (adjusted PR, 13.36; 95% CI: 3.14-56.81) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (adjusted PR, 1.37; 95% CI: 1.05-1.78) was significantly higher in patients with degenerative spinal disease. Among patients with degenerative spinal disease, the prevalence of antiemetic drug intake was 8.7% in lumbar spinal patients and 0% in cervical spinal patients.
conclusionsMore than half of the orthopedic patients in this study were affected by polypharmacy, and approximately two-thirds were prescribed some form of PIMs. Patients with degenerative spinal disease showed a significantly higher prevalence of polypharmacy and PIM use compared with other orthopedic diseases. Particular attention should be paid to the high frequency of antiemetic drugs and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs intake among patients with degenerative lumbar spine conditions.
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.