The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Inappropriate Medication Prescribing for Elderly Ambulatory Care Patients
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inappropriate medication use in elderly patients has been linked to a large share of adverse drug reactions and to excess health care utilization. METHODS: Trends in the prevalence of potentially inappropriate drug prescribing at ambulatory care visits by elderly persons from 1995 to 2000 were examined with data from office-based physicians in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and from hospital outpatient departments in the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Explicit criteria were used to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing. Multivariate regression was used to identify related factors. RESULTS: In 1995 and 2000, at least 1 drug considered inappropriate by the Beers expert panel was prescribed at 7.8% of ambulatory care visits by elderly patients. At least 1 drug classified as never or rarely appropriate by the Zhan expert panel was prescribed at 3.7% and 3.8% of these visits in 1995 and 2000, respectively. Pain relievers and central nervous system drugs were a large share of the problem. The odds of potentially inappropriate prescribing were higher for visits with multiple drugs and double for female visits. The latter was due to more prescribing of potentially inappropriate pain relievers and central nervous system drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Potentially inappropriate prescribing at ambulatory care visits by elderly patients, particularly women, remains a substantial problem. Interventions could target more appropriate drug selection by physicians when prescribing pain relievers, antianxiety agents, sedatives, and antidepressants to elderly patients. Such behavior could eliminate a large portion of inappropriate prescribing for elderly patients and reduce its higher risk for women.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A Drug Burden Index to Define the Functional Burden of Medications in Older People
Hilmer, S. N. (2007) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.167.8.781 · Cited by 759
Medication Use Leading to Emergency Department Visits for Adverse Drug Events in Older Adults
Budnitz, D. S., Shehab, N., Kegler, S. R., & Richards, C. L. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-11-200712040-00006 · Cited by 607
Polypharmacy Among Adults Aged 65 Years and Older in the United States: 1988–2010
Charlesworth, C. J., Smit, E., Lee, D. S. H., Alramadhan, F., & Odden, M. C. (2015) · The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences · doi:10.1093/gerona/glv013 · Cited by 570
Prevalence of Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults Using the 2012 Beers Criteria
Davidoff, A. J., Miller, G. E., Sarpong, E. M., Yang, E., Brandt, N., & Fick, D. M. (2015) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/jgs.13320 · Cited by 344
Moriarty, F., Hardy, C., Bennett, K., Smith, S. M., & Fahey, T. (2015) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008656 · Cited by 266
Metadata
- Authors
- Goulding, M. R.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2004-02-09
- Volume
- 164
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 305
- ISSN
- 0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2101594899
- Cited by
- 288
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Inappropriate Medication Prescribing for Elderly Ambulatory Care Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.164.3.305
- The paper
- Goulding, M. R. (2004). Inappropriate Medication Prescribing for Elderly Ambulatory Care Patients. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.164.3.305
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.