| Title |
Evaluation of the heterogeneity of studies estimating the association between risk factors and the use of potentially inappropriate drug therapy for the elderly: a systematic review with meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00228-015-1891-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ana Patrícia A. L. Santos, Daniel Tenório da Silva, Genival Araujo dos Santos Júnior, Carina Carvalho Silvestre, Marco Antônio Prado Nunes, Divaldo Pereira Lyra, Angelo Roberto Antoniolli |
| Abstract |
This study was conducted to evaluate the heterogeneity of studies estimating the association between risk factors (age, gender, and polypharmacy) and the use of potentially inappropriate drug therapy for the elderly (PIDT). This study is a systematic review with meta-analysis of observational studies. LILACS, PubMed, Scopus, and the Web of Science databases were reviewed. The following data were extracted from the included studies: country, type of study, characteristics of the sample, practice scenarios, instruments to evaluate potentially inappropriate drug therapy for the older adults, and patient-related variables. Twenty-nine articles (17 cross-sectional and 12 cohort) were included. The majority of the studies were conducted in Europe. Regarding the study durations, 3 to 18 months was necessary to perform the research. As for the sample characteristics, all the studies analyzed involved the older adults and included anywhere from 96 patients to 33,830,599 outpatient consultations. Of the variables analyzed, only polypharmacy presented a positive association with the use of PIDT. All meta-analysis studies showed high heterogeneity, indicating the lack of a methodological standardization of the studies included, among other factors. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 4 | 40% |
| Australia | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 5 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 47 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 14% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 9 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 33% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 13 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 11 | 22% |
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 08 November 2015.
All research outputs
#4,685,909
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#449
of 2,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,181
of 263,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#13
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 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 2,557 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 263,581 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 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.