↓ Skip to main content

Inappropriate prescribing and adverse drug events in older people

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, January 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
164 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
225 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 and adverse drug events in older people
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, January 2009
DOI 10.1186/1471-2318-9-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hilary J Hamilton, Paul F Gallagher, Denis O'Mahony

Abstract

Inappropriate prescribing (IP) in older patients is highly prevalent and is associated with an increased risk of adverse drug events (ADEs), morbidity, mortality and healthcare utilisation. Consequently, IP is a major safety concern and with changing population demographics, it is likely to become even more prevalent in the future. IP can be detected using explicit or implicit prescribing indicators. Theoretically, the routine clinical application of these IP criteria could represent an inexpensive and time efficient method to optimise prescribing practice. However, IP criteria must be sensitive, specific, have good inter-rater reliability and incorporate those medications most commonly associated with ADEs in older people. To be clinically relevant, use of prescribing appropriateness tools must translate into positive patient outcomes, such as reduced rates of ADEs. To accurately measure these outcomes, a reliable method of assessing the relationship between the administration of a drug and an adverse clinical event is required. The Naranjo criteria are the most widely used tool for assessing ADE causality, however, they are often difficult to interpret in the context of older patients. ADE causality criteria that allow for the multiple co-morbidities and prescribed medications in older people are required. Ultimately, the current high prevalence of IP and ADEs is unacceptable. IP screening criteria need to be tested as an intervention to assess their impact on the incidence of ADEs in vulnerable older patients. There is a role for IP screening tools in everyday clinical practice. These should enhance, not replace good clinical judgement, which in turn should be based on sound pharmacogeriatric training.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 225 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 3%
Spain 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 212 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 12%
Researcher 24 11%
Student > Bachelor 24 11%
Student > Postgraduate 18 8%
Other 47 21%
Unknown 38 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 90 40%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 51 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 4%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 14 6%
Unknown 49 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 12 May 2012.
All research outputs
#3,252,073
of 22,665,794 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#860
of 3,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,674
of 170,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,665,794 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,134 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 170,723 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.