Cited by 85Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchPharmaceutical studies and practices

Identifying potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people with dementia: a systematic review

Open access
Hukins, Deborah, Macleod, Una, Boland, Jason W.·2019·European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Abstract

PURPOSE: Older people with dementia are at risk of adverse events associated with potentially inappropriate prescribing. AIM: to describe (1) how international tools designed to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing have been used in studies of older people with dementia, (2) the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in this cohort and (3) advantages/disadvantages of tools METHODS: Systematic literature review, designed and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, the Social Science Citation Index, OpenGrey, Base, GreyLit, Mednar and the National Database of Ageing Research were searched in April 2016 for studies describing the use of a tool or criteria to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people with dementia. RESULTS: Three thousand three hundred twenty-six unique papers were identified; 26 were included in the review. Eight studies used more than one tool to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing. There were variations in how the tools were applied. The Beers criteria were the most commonly used tool. Thirteen of the 15 studies using the Beers criteria did not use the full tool. The prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing ranged from 14 to 74% in older people with dementia. Benzodiazepines, hypnotics and anticholinergics were the most common potentially inappropriately prescribed medications. CONCLUSIONS: Variations in tool application may at least in part explain variations in potentially inappropriate prescribing across studies. Recommendations include a more standardised tool usage and ensuring the tools are comprehensive enough to identify all potentially inappropriate medications and are kept up to date.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00228-018-02612-x

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 80 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hukins, D., Macleod, U., & Boland, J. W.
Affiliations
University of Hull (GB)
Corresponding author
Boland, Jason W.
Venue
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Published
2019-01-04
Volume
75
Issue
4
Pages
467-481
ISSN
  • 0031-6970 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1041
OpenAlex
W2908039570
Cited by
84
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6
FWCI
1.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
University of Hull
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
Keywords
potentially inappropriate prescribing, dementia, older adults, Beers criteria, screening tool, prevalence, benzodiazepines, hypnotics, anticholinergic agents, adverse drug reactions
MeSH terms
Potentially Inappropriate Medication List, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Benzodiazepines, Dementia, Female, Humans, Hypnotics and Sedatives, Male, Drug Prescriptions, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Cholinergic Antagonists, Polypharmacy, Inappropriate Prescribing

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