ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Self-reported prescription medication use and polypharmacy following physical combat injury in the UK: the ADVANCE cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The consequences of serious physical traumatic injury may require pharmacological intervention, however long-term use and polypharmacy can increase risk of morbidity/mortality. This study aims to describe prescription medication use in a cohort of UK Armed Forces personnel who sustained physical combat injuries during the Afghanistan conflict (injured group) compared to demographically similar personnel without such injuries (uninjured group) a median of 11 years post injury. Methods: One thousand and fifty one participants of the ADVANCE cohort (injured group Results: Compared to the uninjured group, the injured group reported a greater prevalence of prescription medication use (17.8% vs. 29.7%), including medications acting on the CNS (8.0% vs. 17.2%), psychotropics (6.3% vs. 11.8%) and analgesics (2.2% vs. 8.6%). Prevalence of polypharmacy was very low in the cohort (0%-4.4%). Incidence Rate Ratios (IRR) and 95% confidence intervals indicated that injured personnel were currently using on average over twice as many prescription medications as those in the uninjured group (IRR 2.15 (1.66, 2.92)), including medications acting on the CNS (IRR 2.67 (1.77, 4.08)), and psychotropics (IRR 2.03 (1.27, 3.25)). Similar elevations were present in those injured with and without limb loss and especially elevated in those with deployment-related TBI. Use of psychotropics amongst personnel injured with limb loss were predominantly for non-mental health indications (e.g., sleep, pain). Conclusion: Pharmacological intervention is not uncommon amongst UK Armed Forces personnel who sustained serious physical injuries, but the prevalence of polypharmacy is low. Effective prescribing practices should ensure optimal recovery whilst minimising the risk of adverse events.
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.