↓ Skip to main content

Reduction of Polypharmacy in the Elderly

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs & Aging, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
288 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
260 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Reduction of Polypharmacy in the Elderly
Published in
Drugs & Aging, September 2012
DOI 10.2165/00002512-200320110-00003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victoria Rollason, Nicole Vogt

Abstract

Polypharmacy in the elderly complicates therapy, increases cost, and is a challenge for healthcare agencies. In the context of the evolving role of the pharmacist, this systematic review examines the effectiveness of interventions led by pharmacists in reducing polypharmacy. A computerised search was conducted using Medline, Embase geriatrics and gerontology (2001 edition), the Cochrane Library and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA) databases. A manual search of articles on polypharmacy and the role of pharmacists in the therapy of the elderly and of the reference sections of all retrieved articles was also carried out. Search terms used were 'polypharmacy', 'elderly', 'aged', 'intervention' and 'pharmacist(s)'. Articles that fulfilled the following criteria were included: only elderly people were included in the study, or all ages were included but the study gave separate results for the elderly; the outcome was expressed as a reduction in the number of medications; a pharmacist participated in the study; and the study was a controlled or a randomised controlled study. We initially identified 106 articles, but only 14 studies met our four inclusion criteria. Reduction in the number of medications was not the major purpose of most selected studies but often a secondary outcome. Objectives differed, the general aim being to enhance the quality of prescribing in elderly patients. These controlled studies argued in favour of the effectiveness of pharmacists' interventions, even though the number of medications eliminated was small. Most studies were not designed to demonstrate the impact of reducing the number of drugs on the clinical consequences of polypharmacy (nonadherence, adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions, increased risk of hospitalisation, and medication errors). The most frequently reported outcome related to cost savings. It was therefore difficult to assess whether the interventions benefited the patient. The methodological quality of many identified studies was poor. In particular, the study objectives were often very broad and ill-defined. Polypharmacy itself has been defined in different ways and the appropriate definition may differ according to the patient population and the study setting. Further studies are needed to find the most effective way to reduce polypharmacy, especially in the frail elderly population, and to quantify the real advantages of simplifying their drug regimens in terms of improved quality of life.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 260 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 6 2%
United States 2 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 248 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 13%
Student > Bachelor 30 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 10%
Researcher 23 9%
Other 52 20%
Unknown 54 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 32%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 55 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 8%
Social Sciences 9 3%
Neuroscience 6 2%
Other 27 10%
Unknown 60 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 29 August 2019.
All research outputs
#8,681,963
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Drugs & Aging
#605
of 1,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,292
of 190,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs & Aging
#170
of 451 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 190,295 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 451 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.