↓ Skip to main content

Potentially inappropriate medications in elderly ambulatory and institutionalized patients: an observational study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
126 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Potentially inappropriate medications in elderly ambulatory and institutionalized patients: an observational study
Published in
BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40360-016-0081-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniela Petruta Primejdie, Marius Traian Bojita, Adina Popa

Abstract

The elderly are frequently exposed to drug related problems causing hospitalizations and increased costs of care. Information about Romanian prescribing practices among the elderly and potential medication associated- risks is lacking. The objective of this study was to identify and compare the most frequent potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) recommended to ambulatory and institutionalized Romanian elderly, through an observational retrospective design. All reimbursed medications prescribed to a sample of ambulatory elderly accessing two community pharmacies and all medications recommended to a group of institutionalized elderly (urban facilities, Romania, same month) were analyzed. The STOPP/START criteria and the PRISCUS list were used for PIM identification and for classification as misprescribed, underprescribed or overprescribed -subtypes. The analysis involved 345 prescriptions recommended to ambulatory elderly and 91 medical files available for the institutionalized patients. The ambulatory elderly had a mean age of 74.8 years old and were daily exposed to a median number of 3 prescribed medications. The institutionalized elderly were older (mean age 80.77) received 8 medications daily and 69 % of them were functionally dependent. Cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric indications were the most frequent: 64.34 % and 18.55 % of the ambulatory prescriptions, 93.40 % and 41.75 % of the institutionalized patients' medical files. 159 PIM were identified on 34.49 % of the ambulatory prescriptions. 82.41 % of the institutionalized patients' medical files contained 140 PIM. The potential underprescribing of cardiovascular therapies was the most frequent PIM category on the ambulatory prescriptions (55.34 % of all PIM), while for the institutionalized patients' medical files, the misprescribed and overprescribed PIM were those predominantly represented (62.14 % and 27.14 % of all PIM). In both subgroups of data, NSAIDs (56.66 % of ambulatory prescriptions and 35.63 % of institutionalized patients' data) and benzodiazepines (26.66 % of ambulatory prescriptions and 24.13 % of institutionalized patient's data) were predominantly misprescribed. Anticholinergics were rarely used (0.62 % of total PIM from ambulatory prescriptions, 2.14 % of total PIM from institutionalized patients' data). The PIM identified in both elderly groups suggested potential risks for the occurrence of adverse events specific to the elderly population. Larger studies, both observational and interventional, are needed to ensure a safer therapeutic approach.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 126 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 14%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Student > Postgraduate 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Other 24 19%
Unknown 32 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 30%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 24 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 36 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,739,010
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#207
of 483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,632
of 355,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#7
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 483 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,527 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.