ReviewHealth science reports2025
Acceptability of Interventions to Address Polypharmacy in Older Adult Outpatients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Screening for potentially inappropriate prescribing in primary care: Canadian guideline.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2026Guideline
- Breaking the safety barrier: Risk factors for unjustified non-acceptance of pharmaceutical interventions in the PICU and their association with mortality.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- Evaluating the implementation of a deprescribing intervention in Swiss nursing homes: An observational study using qualitative and quantitative methods.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- Evidence-based nursing to reduce polypharmacy risks in older cholecystectomy patients.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Interventions to address potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP), where risks outweigh benefits, are effective but often not implemented due to barriers (e.g., patient, provider, systems). Concerns about questioning healthcare providers or symptom resurgence when discontinuing medications may make PIP interventions less acceptable. This systematic review aims to determine the acceptability of PIP interventions among older adult outpatients. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and other databases for controlled studies of PIP interventions including older adults (≥ 65 years) residing in community or care home settings. The review included interventions aimed at reducing PIP, whether clinical or external providers. We assessed risk of bias and performed a meta-analysis. Results: Nine studies ( Conclusion: PIP interventions are as acceptable to patients as usual care, despite some burden for patients and prescribers. Patients are more willing to engage in deprescribing conversations when a deprescribing intervention is present.
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.