↓ Skip to main content

Concurrent use of prescription drugs and herbal medicinal products in older adults: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
Concurrent use of prescription drugs and herbal medicinal products in older adults: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0244-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Taofikat Agbabiaka, Barbara Wider, Leala Kay Watson, Claire Goodman

Abstract

There has been a global increase in the use of herbal medicinal products (HMPs). About a quarter of UK adults use HMPs, bought over the counter by self-prescription and often not disclosed to healthcare professionals. Potential herb-drug interaction is a clinical concern, with older people at greater risk because of co-morbidities and slower clearance of pharmacologically active compounds. While there is a good understanding of general herbal medicine use by older people, less is known about the extent and implications of concurrent use with prescription medicines. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the prevalence, patterns, safety issues and other factors associated with concurrent prescription and herbal medicines use among older adults. Systematic electronic searches of MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Web of Science and Cochrane from inception till present for studies reporting the concurrent use of prescription medicines with HMPs in older adults (≥65 years). Lateral searching via related citation (PubMed) and checking reference lists of identified studies will be performed. Two reviewers will independently screen studies, extract data and appraise methodological quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for prevalence data and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. Qualitative and quantitative studies from all settings will be included. Non-empirical papers, in vitro experiments and animal studies will be excluded. Primary outcomes are prevalence and patterns of concurrent use, number and types of prescription and HMPs and adverse reactions reported. Secondary outcomes are disclosure of HMP use to healthcare professionals and cost of HMPs. A narrative synthesis of included studies will be performed to summarise the evidence. This review will synthesise and critically appraise current knowledge on the concurrent use of drugs and HMPs by older adults and thus provide a better understanding of the issue. It will also identify any gaps in knowledge. By establishing safety issues associated with concurrent use, it will also inform strategies that can help practitioners to identify and manage older people at potential risk of herb-drug interactions. PROSPERO CRD42014009091.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 14%
Researcher 11 12%
Lecturer 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 5%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 33 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 34 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 20 June 2019.
All research outputs
#4,354,657
of 23,671,454 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#895
of 2,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,011
of 300,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#15
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,671,454 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,053 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 300,973 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.