↓ Skip to main content

Computerised interventions designed to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing in hospitalised older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Age & Ageing, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
56 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 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
Computerised interventions designed to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing in hospitalised older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Age & Ageing, June 2018
DOI 10.1093/ageing/afy086
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kieran Dalton, Gary O’Brien, Denis O’Mahony, Stephen Byrne

Abstract

computerised interventions have been suggested as an effective strategy to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) for hospitalised older adults. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the evidence for efficacy of computerised interventions designed to reduce PIP in this patient group. an electronic literature search was conducted using eight databases up to October 2017. Included studies were controlled trials of computerised interventions aiming to reduce PIP in hospitalised older adults (≥65 years). Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's Effective Practice and Organisation of Care criteria. of 653 records identified, eight studies were included-two randomised controlled trials, two interrupted time series analysis studies and four controlled before-after studies. Included studies were mostly at a low risk of bias. Overall, seven studies showed either a statistically significant reduction in the proportion of patients prescribed a potentially inappropriate medicine (PIM) (absolute risk reduction {ARR} 1.3-30.1%), or in PIMs ordered (ARR 2-5.9%). However, there is insufficient evidence thus far to suggest that these interventions can routinely improve patient-related outcomes. It was only possible to include three studies in the meta-analysis-which demonstrated that intervention patients were less likely to be prescribed a PIM (odds ratio 0.6; 95% CI 0.38, 0.93). No computerised intervention targeting potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) was identified. this systematic review concludes that computerised interventions are capable of statistically significantly reducing PIMs in hospitalised older adults. Future interventions should strive to target both PIMs and PPOs, ideally demonstrating both cost-effectiveness data and clinically significant improvements in patient-related outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 16%
Student > Master 11 14%
Researcher 7 9%
Unspecified 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 23 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Unspecified 6 7%
Computer Science 4 5%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 24 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 October 2019.
All research outputs
#869,581
of 19,791,698 outputs
Outputs from Age & Ageing
#373
of 3,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,624
of 294,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Age & Ageing
#25
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,791,698 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 3,106 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 294,438 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 58 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 58% of its contemporaries.