Cited by 2,578Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesPharmaceutical studies and practicesPharmacy and Medical Practices

A merican G eriatrics S ociety Updated B eers C riteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults

Open access
The American Geriatrics Society 2012 Beers Criteria Update Expert Panel·2012·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract

Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) continue to be prescribed and used as first-line treatment for the most vulnerable of older adults, despite evidence of poor outcomes from the use of PIMs in older adults. PIMs now form an integral part of policy and practice and are incorporated into several quality measures. The specific aim of this project was to update the previous Beers Criteria using a comprehensive, systematic review and grading of the evidence on drug-related problems and adverse drug events (ADEs) in older adults. This was accomplished through the support of The American Geriatrics Society (AGS) and the work of an interdisciplinary panel of 11 experts in geriatric care and pharmacotherapy who applied a modified Delphi method to the systematic review and grading to reach consensus on the updated 2012 AGS Beers Criteria. Fifty-three medications or medication classes encompass the final updated Criteria, which are divided into three categories: potentially inappropriate medications and classes to avoid in older adults, potentially inappropriate medications and classes to avoid in older adults with certain diseases and syndromes that the drugs listed can exacerbate, and finally medications to be used with caution in older adults. This update has much strength, including the use of an evidence-based approach using the Institute of Medicine standards and the development of a partnership to regularly update the Criteria. Thoughtful application of the Criteria will allow for (a) closer monitoring of drug use, (b) application of real-time e-prescribing and interventions to decrease ADEs in older adults, and (c) better patient outcomes.

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.1532-5415.2012.03923.x

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • The 2012 Beers list specifically lists insulin sliding scales and glyburide as treatment modalities that should be avoided in long-term care facilities.

    “The recently published 2012 Beers list of prohibited medications in long-term care facilities speci fi cally lists insulin sliding scales and glyburide as treatment modalities that should be avoided (61).”
  • Diphenhydramine, other sedative-hypnotics, and medications for anxiety (benzodiazepines) or urinary incontinence (antimuscarinic) are relatively contraindicated in elderly and cognitively vulnerable persons.

    “For example, diphenhydramine, often taken as an over-the-counter drug combination with acetaminophen for sleep and pain relief; other sedative-hypnotics; and medications for anxiety (eg, benzodiazepines) or urinary incontinence (antimuscarinic) are relatively contraindicated in elderly and cognitively vulnerable persons.44,58”

    From The Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Spectrum (2019) · cites this paper as [44]

  • Glyburide has the highest hypoglycemia risk.

    “Glyburide has the highest hypoglycemia risk and should not be prescribed for older adults98.”

    From Diabetes in Older Adults: A Consensus Report (2012) · cites this paper as [98]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
The American Geriatrics Society 2012 Beers Criteria Update Expert Panel
Affiliations
American Geriatrics Society (US)
Corresponding author
The American Geriatrics Society 2012 Beers Criteria Update Expert Panel
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-02-29
Volume
60
Issue
4
Pages
616-631
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
OpenAlex
W2257575319
Cited by
2,578
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 256 · 2020: 298 · 2019: 194 · 2018: 163 · 2017: 213 · 2016: 300 · 2015: 344 · 2014: 305 · 2013: 207 · 2012: 86
FWCI
25.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5k07ag033174-05)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS017695, R01HS018721)
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG027017, K07‐AG033174, R01AG034056, P30AG024827, T32AG021885)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (R01NR010135, R01NR011042, R01NR012242)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
Keywords
Beers criteria, potentially inappropriate medications, older adults, drug-related problems, adverse drug reactions, drug safety, Delphi consensus, level of evidence, quality metrics
MeSH terms
Aged, Geriatrics, Humans, Medication Errors, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Drug Prescriptions, Societies, Medical, United States

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