Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 461

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Inappropriate prescribing in the elderly

Open access
Gallagher, P., Barry, P., O'Mahony, D.·2007·Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Drug therapy is necessary to treat acute illness, maintain current health and prevent further decline. However, optimizing drug therapy for older patients is challenging and sometimes, drug therapy can do more harm than good. Drug utilization review tools can highlight instances of potentially inappropriate prescribing to those involved in elderly pharmacotherapy, i.e. doctors, nurses and pharmacists. We aim to provide a review of the literature on potentially inappropriate prescribing in the elderly and also to review the explicit criteria that have been designed to detect potentially inappropriate prescribing in the elderly. METHODS: We performed an electronic search of the PUBMED database for articles published between 1991 and 2006 and a manual search through major journals for articles referenced in those located through PUBMED. Search terms were elderly, inappropriate prescribing, prescriptions, prevalence, Beers criteria, health outcomes and Europe. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Prescription of potentially inappropriate medications to older people is highly prevalent in the United States and Europe, ranging from 12% in community-dwelling elderly to 40% in nursing home residents. Inappropriate prescribing is associated with adverse drug events. Limited data exists on health outcomes from use of inappropriate medications. There are no prospective randomized controlled studies that test the tangible clinical benefit to patients of using drug utilization review tools. Existing drug utilization review tools have been designed on the basis of North American and Canadian drug formularies and may not be appropriate for use in European countries because of the differences in national drug formularies and prescribing attitudes. CONCLUSION: Given the high prevalence of inappropriate prescribing despite the widespread use of drug-utilization review tools, prospective randomized controlled trials are necessary to identify useful interventions. Drug utilization review tools should be designed on the basis of a country's national drug formulary and should be evidence based.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2710.2007.00793.x

Cites

3 of 3 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

Cited by

See all 461

Metadata

Authors
Gallagher, P., Barry, P., & O'Mahony, D.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics
Published
2007-04
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
113-121
ISSN
  • 0269-4727 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2710
OpenAlex
W2159372140
Cited by
461
References
3
FWCI
8.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Inappropriate prescribing in the elderly. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2710.2007.00793.x
The paper
Gallagher, P., Barry, P., & O'Mahony, D. (2007). Inappropriate prescribing in the elderly. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2710.2007.00793.x

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.