The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, hence interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, is growing. OBJECTIVES: This review sought to determine which interventions, alone or in combination, are effective in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people. SEARCH METHODS: In November 2013, for this first update, a range of literature databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched, and handsearching of reference lists was performed. Search terms included 'polypharmacy', 'medication appropriateness' and 'inappropriate prescribing'. SELECTION CRITERIA: A range of study designs were eligible. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people 65 years of age and older in which a validated measure of appropriateness was used (e.g. Beers criteria, Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Study-specific estimates were pooled, and a random-effects model was used to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the overall quality of evidence for each pooled outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies were added to this review to bring the total number of included studies to 12. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support; 11 complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical approaches to interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals, such as prescribers and pharmacists. Appropriateness of prescribing was measured using validated tools, including the MAI score post intervention (eight studies), Beers criteria (four studies), STOPP criteria (two studies) and START criteria (one study). Interventions included in this review resulted in a reduction in inappropriate medication usage. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall quality of evidence for all pooled outcomes ranged from very low to low. A greater reduction in MAI scores between baseline and follow-up was seen in the intervention group when compared with the control group (four studies; mean difference -6.78, 95% CI -12.34 to -1.22). Postintervention pooled data showed a lower summated MAI score (five studies; mean difference -3.88, 95% CI -5.40 to -2.35) and fewer Beers drugs per participant (two studies; mean difference -0.1, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.09) in the intervention group compared with the control group. Evidence of the effects of interventions on hospital admissions (five studies) and of medication-related problems (six studies) was conflicting. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as pharmaceutical care, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they appear beneficial in terms of reducing inappropriate prescribing.
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
Cites
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad · Cited by 23,305
Hoffmann, T. C., Glasziou, P. P., Boutron, I., Milne, R., Perera, R., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Barbour, V., Macdonald, H., Johnston, M., et al. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g1687 · Cited by 10,548
European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012)
Authors/Task Force Members:, Perk, J., De Backer, G., Gohlke, H., Graham, I., Reiner, Ž., Verschuren, M., Albus, C., Benlian, P., Boysen, G., et al. (2012) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs092 · Cited by 8,490
Barnett, K., Mercer, S. W., Norbury, M., Watt, G., Wyke, S., & Guthrie, B. (2012) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60240-2 · Cited by 6,972
Effect of a multifactorial intervention on mortality in type 2 diabetes
Gæde, P., Lund-Andersen, H., Parving, H.-H., & Pedersen, O. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0706245 · Cited by 3,465
Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach
Michie, S. (2005) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.011155 · Cited by 3,440
Interventions for enhancing medication adherence
Nieuwlaat, R., Wilczynski, N., Navarro, T., Hobson, N., Jeffery, R., Keepanasseril, A., Agoritsas, T., Mistry, N., Iorio, A., Jack, S., et al. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000011.pub4 · Cited by 2,945
Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting
Proctor, E. K., Powell, B. J., & McMillen, J. C. (2013) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-139 · Cited by 2,585
Boyd, C. M., Darer, J., Boult, C., Fried, L. P., Boult, L., & Wu, A. W. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.294.6.716 · Cited by 2,581
Cited by
By the American Geriatrics Society 2015 Beers Criteria Update Expert Panel (2015) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/jgs.13702 · Cited by 2,609
Tannenbaum, C., Martin, P., Tamblyn, R., Benedetti, A., & Ahmed, S. (2014) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.949 · Cited by 665
An update on the clinical consequences of polypharmacy in older adults: a narrative review
Wastesson, J. W., Morin, L., Tan, E. C. K., & Johnell, K. (2018) · Expert Opinion on Drug Safety · doi:10.1080/14740338.2018.1546841 · Cited by 617
Adverse drug reactions in special populations – the elderly
Davies, E. A., & O'Mahony, M. S. (2015) · British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/bcp.12596 · Cited by 604
Polypharmacy in older adults: a narrative review of definitions, epidemiology and consequences
Pazan, F., & Wehling, M. (2021) · European Geriatric Medicine · doi:10.1007/s41999-021-00479-3 · Cited by 542
Metadata
- Authors
- Patterson, S. M., Cadogan, C. A., Kerse, N., Cardwell, C. R., Bradley, M. C., Ryan, C., & Hughes, C.
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-10-07
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- CD008165-CD008165
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-1858
- OpenAlex
- W2142901177
- Cited by
- 754
- References
- 22
- FWCI
- 40.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd008165.pub3
- The paper
- Patterson, S. M., Cadogan, C. A., Kerse, N., Cardwell, C. R., Bradley, M. C., Ryan, C., & Hughes, C. (2014). Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd008165.pub3
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.