Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 344

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prevalence of Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults Using the 2012 Beers Criteria

Open access
Davidoff, Amy J., Miller, G. Edward, Sarpong, Eric M., Yang, Eunice, Brandt, Nicole, Fick, Donna M.·2015·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract

Objectives: To use the most recently available population‐based data to estimate potentially inappropriate medication ( PIM ) prevalence under the 2012 update of the Beers list of PIM s and to provide a benchmark from which to measure future changes. Design: Retrospective cohort study using nationally representative data. Setting: 2006–2010 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey ( MEPS ). Participants: Community‐dwelling sample of U.S. older adults (N = 18,475). Measurements: The updated Beers criteria were operationalized, generating a “broad” PIM definition that incorporated form, route, or dose restrictions where clearly specified and a “qualified” definition that applied specific exceptions where mentioned in the rationale associated with each drug category. Bivariate analyses described PIM prevalence, comparing the two operational definitions, and examined time trends. Results: Of older adults with prescription medications, 42.6% had at least one medication fill that met the broad definition, with nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs ( NSAID s) having the highest prevalence (10.9%). The rate declined from 45.5% in 2006–2007 to 40.8% in 2009–2010. The categories with the largest absolute decline were NSAID s, selected sulfonylureas, and estrogens. PIM prevalence was 30.9% using the qualified definition. Conclusion: Despite the overall high use of PIM s, there has been a decline observed in recent years. Future studies should test the effect of educational and clinical interventions on changes in PIM use and outcomes. The current study results can aid in targeting these interventions.

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/jgs.13320

Cites

24 of 24 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

Show all 24 references

Cited by

See all 344

Metadata

Authors
Davidoff, A. J., Miller, G. E., Sarpong, E. M., Yang, E., Brandt, N., & Fick, D. M.
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-03
Volume
63
Issue
3
Pages
486-500
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
OpenAlex
W2072704021
Cited by
344
References
24
FWCI
27.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Prevalence of Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults Using the 2012 Beers Criteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/jgs.13320
The paper
Davidoff, A. J., Miller, G. E., Sarpong, E. M., Yang, E., Brandt, N., & Fick, D. M. (2015). Prevalence of Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults Using the 2012 Beers Criteria. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.13320

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.