Cited by 697Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesPharmacy and Medical PracticesHealthcare cost, quality, practices

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions): application to acutely ill elderly patients and comparison with Beers' criteria

Gallagher, P., O'Mahony, D.·2008·Age and Ageing

Abstract

Introduction STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions) is a new, systems-defined medicine review tool. We compared the performance of STOPP to that of established Beers' criteria in detecting potentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs) and related adverse drug events (ADEs) in older patients presenting for hospital admission. Methods we prospectively studied 715 consecutive acute admissions to a university teaching hospital. Diagnoses, reason for admission and concurrent medications were recorded. STOPP and Beers' criteria were applied. PIMs with clear causal connection or contribution to the principal reason for admission were determined. Results median patient age (interquartile range) was 77 (72-82) years. Median number of prescription medicines was 6 (range 0-21). STOPP identified 336 PIMs affecting 247 patients (35%), of whom one-third (n = 82) presented with an associated ADE. Beers' criteria identified 226 PIMs affecting 177 patients (25%), of whom 43 presented with an associated ADE. STOPP-related PIMs contributed to 11.5% of all admissions. Beers' criteria-related PIMs contributed to significantly fewer admissions (6%). Conclusion STOPP criteria identified a significantly higher proportion of patients requiring hospitalisation as a result of PIM-related adverse events than Beers' criteria. This finding has significant implications for hospital geriatric practice.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ageing/afn197

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Use of anticholinergic drugs among people with dementia is recognised as inappropriate by both the Beers and the Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) criteria.

    “Use of anticholinergic drugs among people with dementia is recognised as inappropriate by both the Beers and the Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) criteria.10 11”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Juurlink, 2003, JAMA, 289, 1652, 10.1001/jama.289.13.1652 · DOI
  2. Goldberg, 1996, The American journal of emergency medicine, 14, 447, 10.1016/S0735-6757(96)90147-3 · DOI
  3. 2003, British journal of clinical pharmacology, 57, 6, 10.1046/j.1365-2125.2003.02007.x · DOI
  4. Gabriel, 1991, Annals of Internal Medicine, 115, 787, 10.7326/0003-4819-115-10-787 · DOI
  5. Fick, 2003, Archives of Internal Medicine, 163, 2716, 10.1001/archinte.163.22.2716 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Hanlon, 1992, Journal of clinical epidemiology, 45, 1045, 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90144-C · DOI
  7. Naugler, 2000, The Canadian journal of clinical pharmacology = Journal canadien de pharmacologie clinique, 7, 103
  8. 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine, 135, 653, 10.1001/archinte.135.5.653 · DOI
  9. Laroche, 2007, European journal of clinical pharmacology, 63, 725, 10.1007/s00228-007-0324-2 · DOI
  10. Rochon, 1999, JAMA, 282, 113, 10.1001/jama.282.2.113 · DOI
  11. Pitkala, 2002, Archives of Internal Medicine, 162, 1707, 10.1001/archinte.162.15.1707 · DOI
  12. Kunin, 2004, Archives of Internal Medicine, 164, 1701, 10.1001/archinte.164.15.1701-a · DOI
  13. Fialova, 2005, JAMA, 293, 1348, 10.1001/jama.293.11.1348 · DOI
  14. Spinewine, 2007, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 55, 658, 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01132.x · DOI
  15. Gallagher, 2008, International journal of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 46, 72, 10.5414/CPP46072 · DOI
  16. Williams, 2004, BMJ, 328, 634, 10.1136/bmj.328.7440.634 · DOI
  17. Hanlon, 1997, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 45, 945, 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1997.tb02964.x · DOI
  18. Krska, 2001, Age and Ageing, 30, 205, 10.1093/ageing/30.3.205 · DOI
  19. 2007, Age and Ageing, 36, 628, 10.1093/ageing/afm131 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Gallagher, P., & O'Mahony, D.
Affiliations
Cork University Hospital (IE)
Corresponding author
Gallagher, P.
Venue
Age and Ageing
Published
2008-10-01
Volume
37
Issue
6
Pages
673-679
ISSN
  • 0002-0729 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2834
OpenAlex
W2113525252
Cited by
697
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 46 · 2016: 77 · 2015: 68 · 2014: 70 · 2013: 62 · 2012: 77
FWCI
21.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Age and Ageing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
Keywords
STOPP criteria, Beers criteria, potentially inappropriate medications, elderly patients, acute hospitalization, adverse drug reactions, medication review, hospital geriatrics, polypharmacy
MeSH terms
Acute Disease, Admitting Department, Hospital, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Drug Interactions, Female, Hospitals, University, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Medical Records, Prospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Prescription Drugs

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