ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2026
Updating the potentially inappropriate medication (PIM)-China criteria for 2024: a Delphi consensus study for improved medication safety in older adults.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2026. 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.
- Article
- A study of medication safety in rural older people in Luzhou City.Frontiers in public health · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe potentially inappropriate medications (PIM)-China criteria, published in 2017, require updates to reflect new therapeutic evidence and address limitations such as outdated medications and condition-specific considerations.
aimThis study aimed to develop an updated version of the PIM-China criteria through a modified Delphi consensus methodology, ensuring evidence-based and clinically relevant recommendations for older adults in China.
methodA literature review of six PIM criteria (Beers, STOPP, FORTA, EU(7)-PIM, Japan and Korea criteria) and relevant literature (2018-2023) informed a preliminary list of PIMs. A multidisciplinary panel of 33 experts, comprising 12 physicians and 21 pharmacists, evaluated 210 candidate criteria over three Delphi rounds. Statistical measures were used to validate consensus, including Kendall's W, coefficient of variation (CV), and expert authority coefficient (Cr). Cr values ≥ 0.80 indicated high reliability, while Kendall's W > 0.20 signified moderate to strong agreement.
resultsThe updated criteria consist of 154 items, a 57% increase from 2017, including 100 individual medications or drug classes and 54 condition-specific PIMs. Notable additions include recommendations addressing drug-drug interactions, renal function adjustments, and alternative treatments. Consensus improved significantly across rounds, with Kendall's W increasing from 0.145 to 0.271 for individual PIMs and 0.118 to 0.360 for condition-specific PIMs (P < 0.05). Cr reached 0.85, reflecting the panel's high authority.
conclusionThe updated 2024 PIM-China criteria enhance prescribing safety and clinical relevance by incorporating new evidence and expert consensus. These criteria are vital for reducing adverse drug events, optimizing prescribing practices, and improving healthcare for older adults in China.
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.