↓ Skip to main content
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 (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
The associations of geriatric syndromes and other patient characteristics with the current and future use of potentially inappropriate medications in a large cohort study
Published in
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00228-018-2534-1
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To assess the changes in use of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) as defined by the 2015 Beers criteria, the EU(7)-PIM, and the PRISCUS list over a 6-year period and to identify determinants for current and future PIM use with a particular focus on geriatric syndromes. In a German cohort of 2878 community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 60 years, determinants of the use of ≥ 1 PIM were identified in multivariable logistic regression (cross-sectional analysis) and weighted generalized estimating equation models (longitudinal analysis). Prevalences for Beers, EU(7), and PRISCUS PIM were 26.4, 37.4, and 13.7% at baseline and decreased to 23.1, 36.5, and 12.3%, respectively, 6 years later. Unadjusted prevalences in participants with any geriatric syndrome (frailty, co-morbidity, functional, or cognitive impairment) were approximately twice as high as in robust older adults. In multivariable analyses, cognitive impairment was statistically significantly associated with the use of PIM of all three criteria in the cross-sectional (odds ratio (OR) point estimates 1.90-2.21) but not in the longitudinal models. In contrast, frailty, co-morbidity, and functional impairment were statistically significantly associated with the use of PIM of at least one of the three criteria in both models. However, the associations varied for the PIM criteria, and in the longitudinal analysis, associations were only statistically significant for Beers PIM (ORs [95% confidence intervals]: frailty (2.23 [1.15, 4.31]), co-morbidity by five total co-morbidity score points (1.21 [1.05, 1.38]), and functional impairment (1.51 [1.00, 2.27]). Other statistically significant determinants of the incidence of PIM (any definition) were female sex, age, coronary heart disease, heart failure, biomarkers of the metabolic syndrome, and history of ulcer, depressive episodes, hip fracture, or any cancer. Older adults with frailty, co-morbidity, cognitive, and functional impairment had higher odds of taking PIM or getting a PIM prescription in the future (exception: cognitive impairment). Physicians should be especially cautious when prescribing drugs for these patients who are particularly susceptible to adverse reactions.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Master 10 10%
Other 8 8%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 35 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Engineering 4 4%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 39 37%
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 30 January 2019.
All research outputs
#5,536,096
of 26,875,495 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#536
of 2,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,267
of 348,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#5
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,875,495 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 2,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 348,006 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.