ArticleJournal of global health2025
Trends of potentially inappropriate prescribing among older outpatients in China between 2015-21.
Article in Journal of global health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) remains a significant global concern due to its association with adverse drug events in older adults. The prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) varies considerably across different countries. However, there is a lack of evidence using standardised Chinese national criteria to explore variations in prescribing trends. We aimed to evaluate the trends in the prevalence of PIP based on these criteria. Methods: In this descriptive epidemiological study, we utilised prescription data from older outpatients across 59 hospitals in six major geographic regions of China. We analysed the prevalence of PIP overall, as well as the prevalence of PIP caused by varying numbers of PIMs and high-risk PIMs (clopidogrel, estazolam, zolpidem, sliding-scale insulin, alprazolam) for the period between 2015-21. We calculated the average annual percent change (AAPC) using joinpoint regression to examine temporal trends. Results: A total of 982 605 prescriptions for older outpatients between 2015-21 were included in the analysis. The prevalence of PIP related to multiple PIMs increased from 4.70% to 6.09% (AAPC = 4.45). Notably, the prevalence of PIP associated with estazolam (AAPC = 3.71), zolpidem (AAPC = 13.51), and alprazolam (AAPC = 8.86) demonstrated a steady upward trend, while the prevalence of PIP linked to clopidogrel (AAPC = -4.70) consistently declined. Conclusions: We observed an increasing trend in PIP associated with sedative-hypnotic medications. It demands heightened attention in subsequent use to ensure drug safety.
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.