The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: screening tool of older people's prescriptions (STOPP) and screening tool to alert to right treatment (START) criteria were first published in 2008. Due to an expanding therapeutics evidence base, updating of the criteria was required. Methods: we reviewed the 2008 STOPP/START criteria to add new evidence-based criteria and remove any obsolete criteria. A thorough literature review was performed to reassess the evidence base of the 2008 criteria and the proposed new criteria. Nineteen experts from 13 European countries reviewed a new draft of STOPP & START criteria including proposed new criteria. These experts were also asked to propose additional criteria they considered important to include in the revised STOPP & START criteria and to highlight any criteria from the 2008 list they considered less important or lacking an evidence base. The revised list of criteria was then validated using the Delphi consensus methodology. Results: the expert panel agreed a final list of 114 criteria after two Delphi validation rounds, i.e. 80 STOPP criteria and 34 START criteria. This represents an overall 31% increase in STOPP/START criteria compared with version 1. Several new STOPP categories were created in version 2, namely antiplatelet/anticoagulant drugs, drugs affecting, or affected by, renal function and drugs that increase anticholinergic burden; new START categories include urogenital system drugs, analgesics and vaccines. Conclusion: STOPP/START version 2 criteria have been expanded and updated for the purpose of minimizing inappropriate prescribing in older people. These criteria are based on an up-to-date literature review and consensus validation among a European panel of experts.
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
The American Geriatrics Society 2012 Beers Criteria Update Expert Panel (2012) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.03923.x · Cited by 2,578
Cited by
Mancia, G., Kreutz, R., Brunström, M., Burnier, M., Grassi, G., Januszewicz, A., Muiesan, M. L., Tsioufis, K., Agabiti-Rosei, E., Algharably, E. A. E., et al. (2023) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000003480 · Cited by 3,473
By the 2019 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria® Update Expert Panel (2019) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/jgs.15767 · Cited by 3,163
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
World guidelines for falls prevention and management for older adults: a global initiative
Montero-Odasso, M., van der Velde, N., Martin, F. C., Petrovic, M., Tan, M. P., Ryg, J., Aguilar-Navarro, S., Alexander, N. B., Becker, C., Blain, H., et al. (2022) · Age and Ageing · doi:10.1093/ageing/afac205 · Cited by 1,756
Management of Depression in Older Adults: A Review
Kok, R. M., & Reynolds, C. F. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.5706 · Cited by 890
Metadata
- Authors
- O'Mahony, D., O'Sullivan, D., Byrne, S., O'Connor, M. N., Ryan, C., & Gallagher, P.
- Venue
- Age and Ageing
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-10-16
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 213-218
- ISSN
- 0002-0729 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2834
- OpenAlex
- W2130510785
- Cited by
- 2,397
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 60.29
- 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: STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ageing/afu145
- The paper
- O'Mahony, D., O'Sullivan, D., Byrne, S., O'Connor, M. N., Ryan, C., & Gallagher, P. (2014). STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2. Age and Ageing. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afu145
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.