Observational studyBMJ open2025
Prevalence and predictors of sub-optimal laboratory monitoring of selected higher risk medicines in Irish general practice: a 5-year retrospective cohort study of community-dwelling older adults.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the prevalence of sub-optimal monitoring for selected higher-risk medicines in older community-dwelling adults and to evaluate patient characteristics and outcomes associated with sub-optimal monitoring. STUDY
designRetrospective observational study (2011-2015) using historical general practice-based cohort data and linked dispensing data from a national pharmacy claims database.
settingIrish primary care.
participants625 community-dwelling adults aged ≥70 years and prescribed at least one higher-risk medicine during the 5-year study period. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the prevalence of sub-optimal laboratory monitoring using a composite measure of published medication monitoring indicators, with a focus on commonly prescribed higher-risk medicines such as diuretics and anticoagulants. Poisson regression was used to assess the patient characteristics associated with sub-optimal monitoring and explanatory variables included the number of medicines, age, sex, deprivation and anxiety/depression symptoms. Logistic regression was used to explore the association between baseline sub-optimal monitoring and the odds of adverse health outcomes (unplanned healthcare utilisation, adverse drug reactions and mortality).
resultsOf 625 participants, the mean age was 77.7 years, 53% were female, the mean number of drugs was 7.3 (SD 3.3) and 499 (79.8%) had ≥1 unmonitored dispensing over 5 years. The number of drugs, deprivation and anxiety/depression symptoms were significantly associated with sub-optimal monitoring, with the strongest association seen for anxiety/depression symptoms (incidence rate ratio: 1.33, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.68). There was a small but significant association between baseline sub-optimal monitoring and emergency department visits at follow-up, but no evidence of an association with unplanned hospital admissions, mortality or adverse drug reactions.
conclusionThe prevalence of sub-optimal medication monitoring was high, and number of drugs, deprivation and anxiety/depression symptoms were significantly associated with sub-optimal monitoring. However, the public health impact of these findings remains uncertain, as there was no clear evidence of an association between sub-optimal monitoring and adverse health outcomes. Further research is needed to evaluate the effect of improved monitoring strategies and the optimal timing for drug monitoring of higher risk medications.
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.