↓ Skip to main content

Anticholinergic medicines in an older primary care population: a cross‐sectional analysis of medicines’ levels of anticholinergic activity and clinical indications

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Pharmacy & Therapeutics, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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.
Title
Anticholinergic medicines in an older primary care population: a cross‐sectional analysis of medicines’ levels of anticholinergic activity and clinical indications
Published in
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy & Therapeutics, June 2016
DOI 10.1111/jcpt.12413
Pubmed ID
Authors

P J Magin, S Morgan, A Tapley, C McCowan, L Parkinson, K M Henderson, C Muth, M S Hammer, D Pond, K E Mate, N A Spike, L A McArthur, M L van Driel

Abstract

Adverse clinical outcomes have been associated with cumulative anticholinergic burden (to which low-potency as well as high-potency anticholinergic medicines contribute). The clinical indications for which anticholinergic medicines are prescribed (and thus the 'phenotype' of patients with anticholinergic burden) have not been established. We sought to establish the overall prevalence of prescribing of anticholinergic medicines, the prevalence of prescribing of low-, medium- and high-potency anticholinergic medicines, and the clinical indications for which the medicines were prescribed in an older primary care population. This was a cross-sectional analysis of a cohort study of Australian early-career general practitioners' (GPs') clinical consultations - the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) study. In ReCEnT, GPs collect detailed data (including medicines prescribed and their clinical indication) for 60 consecutive patients, on up to three occasions 6 months apart. Anticholinergic medicines were categorized as levels 1 (low-potency) to 3 (high-potency) using the Anticholinergic Drug Scale (ADS). During 2010-2014, 879 early-career GPs (across five of Australia's six states) conducted 20 555 consultations with patients aged 65 years or older, representing 35 506 problems/diagnoses. Anticholinergic medicines were prescribed in 10·4% [95% CIs 9·5-10·5] of consultations. Of the total anticholinergic load of prescribed medicines ('community anticholinergic load') 72·7% [95% CIs 71·0-74·3] was contributed by Level 1 medicines, 0·8% [95% CIs 0·5-1·3] by Level 2 medicines and 26·5% [95% CIs 24·8-28·1] by Level 3 medicines. Cardiac (40·0%), Musculoskeletal (16·9%) and Respiratory (10·6%) were the most common indications associated with Level 1 anticholinergic prescription. For Level 2 and 3 medicines (combined data), Psychological (16·1%), Neurological (16·1%), Musculoskeletal (15·7%) and Urological (11·1%) indications were most common. Anticholinergic medicines are frequently prescribed in Australian general practice, and the majority of the 'community' anticholinergic burden is contributed by 'low'-anticholinergic potency medicines whose anticholinergic effects may be largely 'invisible' to prescribing GPs. Furthermore, the clinical 'phenotype' of the patient with high anticholinergic burden may be very different to common stereotypes (patients with urological, psychological or neurological problems), potentially making recognition of risk of anticholinergic adverse effects additionally problematic for GPs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Other 12 23%
Unknown 14 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 38%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Psychology 1 2%
Chemistry 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 19 36%
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 05 December 2016.
All research outputs
#14,813,698
of 25,420,980 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Pharmacy & Therapeutics
#891
of 1,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,968
of 367,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Pharmacy & Therapeutics
#17
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,420,980 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,639 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 367,736 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.