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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A set of systematic reviews to help reduce inappropriate prescribing to older people: study protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Geriatrics, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12877-017-0570-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yolanda V. Martinez, Anna Renom-Guiteras, David Reeves, R. Erandie Ediriweera de Silva, Aneez Esmail, Ilkka Kunnamo, Anja Rieckert, Christina Sommerauer, Andreas Sönnichsen |
| Abstract |
Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are common in older people. Assessment tools or lists of criteria aimed at supporting prescription decisions for older people exist, but have often been based on expert opinion with insufficient consideration of the evidence available. The present paper describes the methods we are using to systematically review the existing evidence on the efficacy and safety of the most commonly prescribed drugs for older people in the management of their chronic medical conditions and to develop recommendations to reduce inappropriate prescriptions for incorporation into the Comprehensive Medication Review (CMR) tool developed by the PRIMA-eDS European project. We selected the 20 most relevant drugs/drug classes in terms of prescription volumes and risk of hospitalisation for older people and the most relevant indications for the most common chronic conditions among older people and a total of 35 distinct drug-indication pairs were chosen. Based on clinical considerations we collapsed some indications together, reducing the 35 pairs to a final total of 22 separate systematic reviews (SR). A common methodology will be used for each individual SR, based on the methodological manuals of the Cochrane collaboration and the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews. Our search strategy will have a staged approach where we initially search for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, but if relevant reviews are not found, then search for individual studies (controlled intervention and observational studies). Our pilot work and initial scoping of the literature suggested that very few, relevant individual trials or existing systematic reviews have researched or reported exclusively on older people. Therefore, sufficient data might not be available to perform meta-analysis but we will provide a narrative synthesis describing characteristics and findings of included studies. The collected evidence will be used to construct recommendations on when not to use or to discontinue a drug, or when to reduce its dose. Recommendations will be developed in team meetings using the GRADE methodology to reflect the strength of the recommendation and the quality of the evidence. Recommendations will be built into the CMR tool. This protocol has been prepared for a series of systematic reviews which will provide research-based evidence to develop recommendations to reduce inappropriate polypharmacy in older people as part of the CMR tool of the PRIMA-eDS project. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 77 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 13% |
| Researcher | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 20 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 30% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 9 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 10% |
| Psychology | 4 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 22 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,487,739
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#2,375
of 3,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,888
of 325,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#47
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 325,892 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.