↓ Skip to main content

Inappropriate prescribing to the oldest old patients admitted to hospital: prevalence, most frequently used medicines, and associated factors

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
63 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
221 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
Inappropriate prescribing to the oldest old patients admitted to hospital: prevalence, most frequently used medicines, and associated factors
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12877-015-0038-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonio San-José, Antonia Agustí, Xavier Vidal, Francesc Formiga, Mercedes Gómez-Hernández, Juana García, Alfonso López-Soto, Nieves Ramírez-Duque, Olga H Torres, José Barbé, on behalf of Potentially Inappropriate Prescription in Older Patients in Spain (PIPOPS) Investigators’ project

Abstract

Scientific evidence on treatments of chronic diseases in patients 85 years old or older is very limited, as is available information on inappropriate prescription (IP) and its associated factors. The study aimed to describe medicine prescription, potentially inappropriate medicines (PIM) and potentially prescribing omissions (PPO) and their associated factors on this population. In the context of an observational, prospective and multicentric study carried out in elderly patients admitted to seven Spanish hospitals for a year, a sub-analysis of those aged 85 years and over was performed. To assess PIMs, the Beers and STOPP criteria were used, and to assess PPOs, the START and the ACOVE-3 criteria were used. To assess factors associated with IP, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed. Patients were selected randomly every week on consecutive days from the hospitalization lists. A total of 336 patients were included in the sub-analysis with a median (Q1-Q3) age of 88 (86-90) years. The median medicines taken during the month prior to admission was 10 (7-13). Forty-seven point two per cent of patients had at least one Beers-listed PIM, 63.3% at least one STOPP-listed PIM, 53.6% at least one START-listed PPO, and 59.4% at least one ACOVE-3-listed PPO. Use of benzodiazepines in patients who are prone to falls (18.3%) and omission of calcium and vitamin D supplements in patients with osteoporosis (13.3%) were the most common PIM and PPO, respectively. The main factor associated with the Beers-listed and the STOPP-listed PIM was consumption of 10 or more medicines (OR = 5.7, 95% CI 1.8-17.9 and OR = 13.4, 95% CI 4.0-44.0, respectively). The main factors associated with the START-listed PPO was a non-community dwelling origin (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.0-5.0), and multimorbidity (OR1.8, 95% CI 1.0-3.1). Prescribed medicines and PIM and PPO prevalence were high among patients 85 years and over. Benzodiazepine use in those who are prone to falls and omission of calcium and vitamin D in those with osteoporosis were the most frequent PIM and PPO, respectively. Factors associated with PIM and PPO differed with polypharmacy being the most important factor associated with PIM.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 63 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 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 3 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Unknown 216 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 17%
Student > Bachelor 26 12%
Researcher 23 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 10%
Other 59 27%
Unknown 32 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 40%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 36 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Other 18 8%
Unknown 45 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 02 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,088,815
of 25,401,784 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#175
of 3,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,633
of 279,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#4
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,401,784 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,650 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 279,976 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.