↓ Skip to main content

Características del uso inadecuado de medicamentos en pacientes pluripatológicos de edad avanzada

Overview of attention for article published in Gaceta Sanitaria, July 2017
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
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Características del uso inadecuado de medicamentos en pacientes pluripatológicos de edad avanzada
Published in
Gaceta Sanitaria, July 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.gaceta.2016.06.013
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paula Carlota Rivas-Cobas, Nieves Ramírez-Duque, Mercedes Gómez Hernández, Juana García, Antonia Agustí, Xavier Vidal, Francesc Formiga, Alfonso López-Soto, Olga H. Torres, Antonio San-José

Abstract

To analyse potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in elderly polypathological patients (PP). Multicentre observational, prospective study of 672 patients aged 75 years and older hospitalised in Internal Medicine between April 2011 and March 2012. The Beers, STOPP-START and ACOVE criteria were used to detect potentially inappropriate prescribing and the results of PP and non-PP patients were compared. Of the 672 patients included, 419 (62%) were polypathological, of which 89.3% met PIP criteria versus 79.4% of non-polypathological patients (p <0.01). 40.3% of polypathological patients met at least one Beers criteria, 62.8% at least one STOPP criteria, 62.3% at least one START criteria and 65.6% at least one ACOVE criteria. The rate of potentially inappropriate prescribing was higher in polypathological patients regardless of the tool used. Given the high rate of potentially inappropriate prescribing in polypathological patients, strategies to improve prescribing adequacy must be developed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 17%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Other 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Other 10 33%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 23%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 17%
Unspecified 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 8 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 May 2018.
All research outputs
#10,295,670
of 16,135,689 outputs
Outputs from Gaceta Sanitaria
#489
of 774 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,298
of 267,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gaceta Sanitaria
#10
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,135,689 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 774 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 267,194 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.