↓ Skip to main content

Development and Application of the GheOP3S-Tool Addendum on Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing (PIP) of Renally Excreted Active Drugs (READs) in Older Adults with Polypharmacy

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs & Aging, March 2018
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 (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Development and Application of the GheOP3S-Tool Addendum on Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing (PIP) of Renally Excreted Active Drugs (READs) in Older Adults with Polypharmacy
Published in
Drugs & Aging, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40266-018-0530-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abdul Aziz Al Wazzan, Eline Tommelein, Katrien Foubert, Stefano Bonassi, Graziano Onder, Annemie Somers, Mirko Petrovic, Koen Boussery

Abstract

Renal function progressively worsens with age. Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) of renally excreted active drugs (READs) is common in older adults, leading to an increased rate of iatrogenic illness. The Ghent Older People's Prescription community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP3S-) tool is an effective, explicit instrument that was developed for community pharmacists (CPs) to detect PIP. So far, this tool does not assess PIP of the frequently used READs in older patients with renal impairment. This study aimed to expand the GheOP3S-tool with the first addendum to screen for PIP of frequently used READs, and to perform a cross-sectional analysis using the addendum and the medication history of a group of older adults with polypharmacy. The addendum was developed in three steps: (1) collection of individual and combined READs, (2) collection of dose-adjustment recommendations, and (3) expert panel evaluation. Consequently, the addendum was applied retrospectively on the medication list of 60 older adults with polypharmacy and with four renal function-estimating equations. The addendum includes 61 READs recommendations for dose/drug-adjustment alternatives, laboratory test follow-ups, and patients' referral to specialists' care. In the cross-sectional analysis, 35-78% of patients were diagnosed with renal impairment, depending on the equations used for renal function estimation. Among patients with renal impairment, 21-46% of the prescribed READs were deemed potentially inappropriate by the GheOP3S-tool addendum. The GheOP3S-tool was expanded with an addendum on PIP of READs in renal impairment for older patients. The cross-sectional analysis using the addendum suggests that PIP of READs is common in older patients with polypharmacy and renal impairment. Using this addendum, CPs might contribute to diminishing PIP of READs.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Master 6 13%
Other 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 16 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 16 July 2018.
All research outputs
#4,694,624
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Drugs & Aging
#317
of 1,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,028
of 332,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs & Aging
#8
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 332,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 66% of its contemporaries.