ArticleTherapeutic advances in drug safety2026
Team approach to polypharmacy evaluation and reduction for general practice patients with dementia: the Australian TAPERDem study.
Article in Therapeutic advances in drug safety, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Polypharmacy is common in people with dementia but may be insufficiently tailored to personal preferences and goals, particularly in the presence of a life-limiting condition. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacists working with general practitioners (GPs) to optimise medicine regimens and health outcomes of people with dementia by applying the Medication Appropriateness Tool for Comorbid Health Conditions During Dementia (MATCH-D) as part of a structured Team Approach to Polypharmacy Evaluation and Reduction (AusTAPER). Design: Randomised controlled trial. Methods: This study was conducted in Perth, Western Australia, with 12month follow‑up. The intervention was a collaborative medicine review that included a medicines history, interview by a research pharmacist, and a case conference with the participant's GP. Outcomes included medicines regimen, emergency department presentation, hospitalisations, and health outcomes at 12 months. Results: Overall, 19 GPs and 31 participants were recruited (five directly; 26 through GP practices). The pharmacist spent an additional mean of 5.5 hours with intervention participants. At baseline, the median number of regular medicines was 8.5 (IQR 3) in the control group and 10 (IQR 7) in the intervention group, and at 12 months, 11 (IQR 4) and 9.5 (IQR 5), respectively. Emergency department presentations were observed for 9/16 (56%) control and 10/15 (66%) intervention participants, with a median of 1 (IQR 1.5) versus 1 (IQR 4) presentations ( Conclusion: Over 12 months, participants in both groups had similar medicine use, outcomes and quality of life. It was feasible to recruit people with dementia, and their doctors, to a medicine review intervention. Trial registration: This study was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR; ACTRN12619000453189) on 19 March 2019.
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.