↓ Skip to main content

Impact of Deprescribing Interventions in Older Hospitalised Patients on Prescribing and Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Randomised Trials

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs & Aging, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#36 of 1,296)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
147 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
186 Mendeley
Title
Impact of Deprescribing Interventions in Older Hospitalised Patients on Prescribing and Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Randomised Trials
Published in
Drugs & Aging, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40266-018-0536-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janani Thillainadesan, Danijela Gnjidic, Sarah Green, Sarah N. Hilmer

Abstract

Polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are prevalent in older adults in hospital, and are associated with negative outcomes including adverse drug reactions, falls, confusion, hospitalisation and death. Deprescribing may reduce inappropriate polypharmacy and use of inappropriate medications. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the efficacy of deprescribing interventions in older inpatients to reduce PIMs and impact on clinical outcomes. Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Informit, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Scopus, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and CINAHL were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from 1996 to April 2017. RCTs reporting on deprescribing interventions to reduce PIMs in older hospitalised adults were eligible. Data were extracted, and study quality assessed. The primary outcome was reduction in PIMs. Where available, clinically relevant outcomes were assessed. Nine RCTs (n = 2522 subjects) met the inclusion criteria. Deprescribing interventions were either pharmacist-led (n = 4), physician-led (n = 4) or multidisciplinary team-led (n = 1). Seven of the nine studies reported a statistically significant reduction in PIMs in the intervention group. There was no change in one study where there were zero PIMs on admission and discharge, and in the other study a reduction in PIMs that was not statistically significant was observed. There was significant heterogeneity in outcome measures and reporting. Few studies reported on the impact of deprescribing interventions on clinical outcomes. Reported clinical outcomes included drug-related problems (n = 3), quality of life (n = 2), mortality (n = 3), hospital readmissions (n = 4), falls (n = 3) and functional status (n = 2). Most studies reported a benefit in the intervention group that was not statistically significant. No notable harm was observed in the intervention group. There was a high risk of bias in the included studies. The evidence available suggests that deprescribing interventions in hospital are feasible, generally effective at reducing PIMs and safe. However, the current evidence is limited, of low quality and the impact on clinical outcomes is unclear.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 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 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 186 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 12%
Researcher 18 10%
Student > Master 18 10%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Other 13 7%
Other 39 21%
Unknown 60 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 43 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 6%
Psychology 5 3%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 62 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 24 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,113,282
of 24,803,011 outputs
Outputs from Drugs & Aging
#36
of 1,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,191
of 339,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs & Aging
#1
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,803,011 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 339,021 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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.