ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Potentially inappropriate medications in older outpatients with depression: a cross-sectional study comparing the Beers criteria and the Chinese criteria.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To determine the prevalence of PIMs and identify associated factors in older Chinese outpatients with depression, using a combined evaluation based on the 2023 Beers criteria and the 2017 Chinese criteria. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted at a provincial tertiary psychiatric hospital in China, enrolling older outpatients (≥ 65 years) diagnosed with depression. PIM status was identified according to the 2023 Beers criteria and the 2017 Chinese criteria. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with PIMs. Interaction, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses were also performed. Results: Among 3,155 eligible patients (mean age 74.22 ± 6.70 years), PIM prevalence was 92.71% under the Beers criteria and 65.13% under the Chinese criteria. Under both criteria, quetiapine, benzodiazepines and sedative-hypnotics were the most frequently identified as PIMs. Female sex (Beers: aOR = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.16-2.12; Chinese: aOR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.20-1.73), polypharmacy (Beers: aOR = 2.43, 95% CI: 2.08-2.85; Chinese: aOR = 2.51, 95% CI: 2.30-2.74), and comorbid sleep disorders (Beers: aOR = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.27-2.51; Chinese: aOR = 3.67, 95% CI: 2.99-4.50) were associated with high use of PIM under both criteria. In contrast, coronary heart disease and number of comorbidities were negatively associated factors, and ischemic stroke showed criterion-dependent differences in its association with PIMs. Conclusion: The prevalence of PIMs among older Chinese outpatients with depression was remarkably high in this cohort, with associations partly different across the two criteria. The single-center retrospective design, unmeasured confounders, unavailability of renal function data, and lack of follow-up assessment warrant cautious interpretation of the results. Multidisciplinary medication review and individualized deprescribing strategies can be implemented in clinical practice for this vulnerable population.
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.