| Title |
Reduction of Potentially Inappropriate Medications Using the STOPP Criteria in Frail Older Inpatients: A Randomised Controlled Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drugs & Aging, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40266-014-0157-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
O. Dalleur, B. Boland, C. Losseau, S. Henrard, D. Wouters, N. Speybroeck, J. M. Degryse, A. Spinewine |
| Abstract |
Hospital admissions may provide an opportunity to discontinue potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in older patients. Little is known about the effect of using the Screening Tool of Older People's potentially inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) in this context. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that specific STOPP recommendations from an inpatient geriatric consultation team (IGCT) to the hospital physician leads to reductions in PIMs for patients at discharge. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 2 | 18% |
| Spain | 2 | 18% |
| Unknown | 7 | 64% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 73% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 18% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 198 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 29 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 12% |
| Researcher | 23 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 20 | 10% |
| Other | 48 | 24% |
| Unknown | 37 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 73 | 36% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 40 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 16 | 8% |
| Unknown | 47 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 27 June 2019.
All research outputs
#2,465,143
of 24,849,927 outputs
Outputs from Drugs & Aging
#136
of 1,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,205
of 226,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs & Aging
#1
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,849,927 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 226,833 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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 99% of its contemporaries.