Cited by 339Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesChronic Disease Management StrategiesPharmacy and Medical Practices

Evidence Supporting the Best Clinical Management of Patients with Multimorbidity and Polypharmacy: A Systematic Guideline Review and Expert Consensus

Muth, C., Blom, J. W., Smith, S. M., Johnell, K., Gonzalez‐Gonzalez, A. I., Nguyen, T. S., Brueckle, M.‐S., Cesari, M. +2 more·2019·Journal of Internal Medicine

Abstract

The complexity and heterogeneity of patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy renders traditional disease‐oriented guidelines often inadequate and complicates clinical decision making. To address this challenge, guidelines have been developed on multimorbidity or polypharmacy. To systematically analyse their recommendations, we conducted a systematic guideline review using the Ariadne principles for managing multimorbidity as analytical framework. The information synthesis included a multistep consensus process involving 18 multidisciplinary experts from seven countries. We included eight guidelines (four each on multimorbidity and polypharmacy) and extracted about 250 recommendations. The guideline addressed (i) the identification of the target population (risk factors); (ii) the assessment of interacting conditions and treatments: medical history, clinical and psychosocial assessment including physiological status and frailty, reviews of medication and encounters with healthcare providers highlighting informational continuity; (iii) the need to incorporate patient preferences and goal setting: eliciting preferences and expectations, the process of shared decision making in relation to treatment options and the level of involvement of patients and carers; (iv) individualized management: guiding principles on optimization of treatment benefits over possible harms, treatment communication and the information content of medication/care plans; (v) monitoring and follow‐up: strategies in care planning, self‐management and medication‐related aspects, communication with patients including safety instructions and adherence, coordination of care regarding referral and discharge management, medication appropriateness and safety concerns. The spectrum of clinical and self‐management issues varied from guiding principles to specific recommendations and tools providing actionable support. The limited availability of reliable risk prediction models, feasible interventions of proven effectiveness and decision aids, and limited consensus on appropriate outcomes of care highlight major research deficits. An integrated approach to both multimorbidity and polypharmacy should be considered in future guidelines.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/joim.12842

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • When multiple guidelines are used simultaneously, patients experience cumulative treatment burdens.

    “When multiple guidelines are used simultaneously, patients will experience cumulative treatment burdens.”
  • Guidelines for individual diseases often do not account for multimorbidity, leading to duplicate testing and a higher treatment burden.

    “However, guidelines for individual diseases often do not account for multimorbidity, leading to duplicate testing and a higher treatment burden [154].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 55 · Cited by 339

Authors
Muth, C., Blom, J. W., Smith, S. M., Johnell, K., Gonzalez‐Gonzalez, A. I., Nguyen, T. S., Brueckle, M. ‐., Cesari, M., Tinetti, M. E., & Valderas, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
  • Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (IE)
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • Institute of General Practice Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt/Main Germany
  • University of Milan (IT)
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
Corresponding author
Muth, C.
Venue
Journal of Internal Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-12-10
Volume
285
Issue
3
Pages
272-288
ISSN
  • 0954-6820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2796
OpenAlex
W2898090436
Cited by
339
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 15 · 2014: 1
FWCI
14.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (acceptedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Health Research Board (CDA-2018-003)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
Keywords
multimorbidity, polypharmacy, clinical management, guideline recommendations, shared decision-making, patient preferences, frailty assessment, medication review, care coordination, self-management, drug safety, patient-centered care, risk prediction model
MeSH terms
Self-Management, Multimorbidity, Continuity of Patient Care, Goals, Health Priorities, Humans, Primary Health Care, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Patient-Centered Care, Polypharmacy, Evidence-Based Practice, Patient Preference, Medication Reconciliation

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