Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 544

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Adverse Outcomes of Polypharmacy in Older People: Systematic Review of Reviews

Open access
Davies, Laurie E., Spiers, Gemma, Kingston, Andrew, Todd, Adam, Adamson, Joy, Hanratty, Barbara·2020·Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
DOI 10.1016/j.jamda.2019.10.022
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Polypharmacy is widespread among older people, but the adverse outcomes associated with it are unclear. We aim to synthesize current evidence on the adverse health, social, medicines management, and health care utilization outcomes of polypharmacy in older people. DESIGN: A systematic review, of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies, was conducted. Eleven bibliographic databases were searched from 1990 to February 2018. Quality was assessed using AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Older people in any health care setting, residential setting, or country. RESULTS: Twenty-six reviews reporting on 230 unique studies were included. Almost all reviews operationalized polypharmacy as medication count, and few examined medication classes or disease states within this. Evidence for an association between polypharmacy and many adverse outcomes, including adverse drug events and disability, was conflicting. The most consistent evidence was found for hospitalization and inappropriate prescribing. No research had explored polypharmacy in the very old (aged ≥85 years), or examined the potential social consequences associated with medication use, such as loneliness and isolation. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The literature examining the adverse outcomes of polypharmacy in older people is complex, extensive, and conflicting. Until polypharmacy is operationalized in a more clinically relevant manner, the adverse outcomes associated with it will not be fully understood. Future studies should work toward this approach in the face of rising multimorbidity and population aging.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jamda.2019.10.022

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Cited by

See all 544

Metadata

Authors
Davies, L. E., Spiers, G., Kingston, A., Todd, A., Adamson, J., & Hanratty, B.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-02
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
181-187
ISSN
1525-8610 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jamda.2019.10.022
OpenAlex
W3000114476
Cited by
544
References
70
FWCI
8.08
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

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.