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; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy in older people: a Cochrane systematic review

Open access
Cooper, Janine A, Cadogan, Cathal A, Patterson, Susan M, Kerse, Ngaire, Bradley, Marie C, Ryan, Cristín, Hughes, Carmel M·2015·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objective: To summarise the findings of an updated Cochrane review of interventions aimed at improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy in older people. Design: Cochrane systematic review. Multiple electronic databases were searched including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from inception to November 2013). Hand searching of references was also performed. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series analyses reporting on interventions targeting appropriate polypharmacy in older people in any healthcare setting were included if they used a validated measure of prescribing appropriateness. Evidence quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Setting: All healthcare settings. Participants: Older people (≥65 years) with ≥1 long-term condition who were receiving polypharmacy (≥4 regular medicines). Primary and secondary outcome measures: Primary outcomes were the change in prevalence of appropriate polypharmacy and hospital admissions. Medication-related problems (eg, adverse drug reactions), medication adherence and quality of life were included as secondary outcomes. Results: 12 studies were included: 8 RCTs, 2 cluster RCTs and 2 controlled before-and-after studies. 1 study involved computerised decision support and 11 comprised pharmaceutical care approaches across various settings. Appropriateness was measured using validated tools, including the Medication Appropriateness Index, Beers’ criteria and Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions (STOPP)/ Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START). The interventions demonstrated a reduction in inappropriate prescribing. Evidence of effect on hospital admissions and medication-related problems was conflicting. No differences in health-related quality of life were reported. Conclusions: The included interventions demonstrated improvements in appropriate polypharmacy based on reductions in inappropriate prescribing. However, it remains unclear if interventions resulted in clinically significant improvements (eg, in terms of hospital admissions). Future intervention studies would benefit from available guidance on intervention development, evaluation and reporting to facilitate replication in clinical practice.

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 · 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009235

Cites

46 of 46 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 46 references

Cited by

See all 344

Metadata

Authors
Cooper, J. A., Cadogan, C. A., Patterson, S. M., Kerse, N., Bradley, M. C., Ryan, C., & Hughes, C. M.
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2015-12
Volume
5
Issue
12
Pages
e009235
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2225022024
Cited by
344
References
46
FWCI
3.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy in older people: a Cochrane systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009235
The paper
Cooper, J. A., Cadogan, C. A., Patterson, S. M., Kerse, N., Bradley, M. C., Ryan, C., & Hughes, C. M. (2015). Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy in older people: a Cochrane systematic review. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009235

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.