The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Appropriate Polypharmacy and Medicine Safety: When Many is not Too Many
Open accessAbstract
The use of multiple medicines (polypharmacy) is increasingly common in middle-aged and older populations. Ensuring the correct balance between the prescribing of 'many' drugs and 'too many' drugs is a significant challenge. Clinicians are tasked with ensuring that patients receive the most appropriate combinations of medications based on the best available evidence, and that medication use is optimised according to patients' clinical needs (appropriate polypharmacy). Historically, polypharmacy has been viewed negatively because of the associated medication safety risks, such as drug interactions and adverse drug events. More recently, polypharmacy has been identified as a risk factor for under-prescribing, such that patients do not receive necessary medications and this can also pose risks to patients' safety and well-being. The negative connotations that have long been associated with the term polypharmacy could potentially be acting as a driving factor for under-prescribing, whereby clinicians are reluctant to prescribe necessary medicines for patients who are already receiving 'many' medicines. It is now recognised that the prescribing of 'many' medicines can be entirely appropriate in patients with several chronic conditions and that the risks of adverse drug events that have been associated with polypharmacy may be greatly reduced when patients' clinical context is taken into consideration. In this article, we outline the current perspectives on polypharmacy and make the case for adopting the term 'appropriate polypharmacy' in differentiating between the prescribing of 'many' drugs and 'too many' drugs. We also outline the inherent challenges in doing so and provide recommendations for future clinical practice and research.
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
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
Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider
Williamson, P. R., Altman, D. G., Blazeby, J. M., Clarke, M., Devane, D., Gargon, E., & Tugwell, P. (2012) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-132 · Cited by 1,661
Hughes, L. D., McMurdo, M. E. T., & Guthrie, B. (2013) · Age and Ageing · doi:10.1093/ageing/afs100 · Cited by 506
Cited by
Green nephrology and eco-dialysis: A position statement by the Italian Society of Nephrology
On the Behalf of Conservative treatment, P. A. A. P. D. P. G. O. T. I. S. O. N., Piccoli, G. B., Cupisti, A., Aucella, F., Regolisti, G., Lomonte, C., Ferraresi, M., Claudia, D., Ferraresi, C., Russo, R., et al. (2020) · Journal of Nephrology · doi:10.1007/s40620-020-00734-z · Cited by 133
Polypharmacy and inappropriate medication use in patients with dementia: an underresearched problem
Parsons, C. (2017) · Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety · doi:10.1177/2042098616670798 · Cited by 113
Carolan, A., Hynes-Ryan, C., Agarwal, S. M., Bourke, R., Cullen, W., Gaughran, F., Hahn, M. K., Krivoy, A., Lally, J., Leucht, S., et al. (2025) · Schizophrenia Bulletin · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbae205 · Cited by 70
Lukacena, K. M., Keck, J. W., Freeman, P. R., Harrington, N. G., Huffmyer, M. J., & Moga, D. C. (2022) · Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety · doi:10.1177/20420986221116465 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Cadogan, C. A., Ryan, C., & Hughes, C. M.
- Venue
- Drug Safety
- Published
- 2015-12-21
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 109-116
- ISSN
- 0114-5916 (ISSN-L)
- 1179-1942
- OpenAlex
- W2255880215
- Cited by
- 298
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 5.62
- 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: Appropriate Polypharmacy and Medicine Safety: When Many is not Too Many. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s40264-015-0378-5
- The paper
- Cadogan, C. A., Ryan, C., & Hughes, C. M. (2016). Appropriate Polypharmacy and Medicine Safety: When Many is not Too Many. Drug Safety. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-015-0378-5
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.