The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A systematic review of the evidence for deprescribing interventions among older people living with frailty
Open accessAbstract
Background: Older people living with frailty are often exposed to polypharmacy and potential harm from medications. Targeted deprescribing in this population represents an important component of optimizing medication. This systematic review aims to summarise the current evidence for deprescribing among older people living with frailty. Methods: The literature was searched using Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library up to May 2020. Interventional studies with any design or setting were included if they reported deprescribing interventions among people aged 65+ who live with frailty identified using reliable measures. The primary outcome was safety of deprescribing; whereas secondary outcomes included clinical outcomes, medication-related outcomes, feasibility, acceptability and cost-related outcomes. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise findings and study quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute checklists. Results: Two thousand three hundred twenty-two articles were identified and six (two randomised controlled trials) were included with 657 participants in total (mean age range 79–87 years). Studies were heterogeneous in their designs, settings and outcomes. Deprescribing interventions were pharmacist-led ( n = 3) or multidisciplinary team-led ( n = 3). Frailty was identified using several measures and deprescribing was implemented using either explicit or implicit tools or both. Three studies reported safety outcomes and showed no significant changes in adverse events, hospitalisation or mortality rates. Three studies reported positive impact on clinical outcomes including depression, mental health status, function and frailty; with mixed findings on falls and cognition; and no significant impact on quality of life. All studies described medication-related outcomes and reported a reduction in potentially inappropriate medications and total number of medications per-patient. Feasibility of deprescribing was reported in four studies which showed that 72–91% of recommendations made were implemented. Two studies evaluated and reported the acceptability of their interventions and further two described cost saving. Conclusion: There is a paucity of research about the impact of deprescribing in older people living with frailty. However, included studies suggest that deprescribing could be safe, feasible, well tolerated and can lead to important benefits. Research should now focus on understanding the impact of deprescribing on frailty status in high risk populations. Trial registration: The review was registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) ID number: CRD42019153367 .
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews.
Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 · Cited by 26,092
Clegg, A., Young, J., Iliffe, S., Rikkert, M. O., & Rockwood, K. (2013) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)62167-9 · Cited by 9,503
Frailty Consensus: A Call to Action
Morley, J. E., Vellas, B., Abellan van Kan, G., Anker, S. D., Bauer, J. M., Bernabei, R., Cesari, M., Chumlea, W. C., Doehner, W., Evans, J., et al. (2013) · Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2013.03.022 · Cited by 4,043
What is polypharmacy? A systematic review of definitions
Masnoon, N., Shakib, S., Kalisch-Ellett, L., & Caughey, G. E. (2017) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-017-0621-2 · Cited by 3,293
Validity and reliability of the Edmonton Frail Scale
Rolfson, D. B., Majumdar, S. R., Tsuyuki, R. T., Tahir, A., & Rockwood, K. (2006) · Age and Ageing · doi:10.1093/ageing/afl041 · Cited by 1,643 · cited 1×
“The Edmonton frailty tool consists of 9 domains including number of medications [46].”
MethodJournal of the American Geriatrics Society
(1976) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1976.tb03307.x · Cited by 1,313
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
(2010) · British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/(issn)1365-2125 · Cited by 833
Cited by
Polypharmacy and precision medicine
Fujita, K., Masnoon, N., Mach, J., O’Donnell, L. K., & Hilmer, S. N. (2023) · Cambridge Prisms: Precision Medicine · doi:10.1017/pcm.2023.10 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Ibrahim, K., Cox, N. J., Stevenson, J. M., Lim, S., Fraser, S. D. S., & Roberts, H. C.
- Venue
- BMC Geriatrics
- Published
- 2021-04-17
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 258-258
- ISSN
- 1471-2318 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3107594151
- Cited by
- 266
- References
- 57
- FWCI
- 9.11
- 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: A systematic review of the evidence for deprescribing interventions among older people living with frailty. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s12877-021-02208-8
- The paper
- Ibrahim, K., Cox, N. J., Stevenson, J. M., Lim, S., Fraser, S. D. S., & Roberts, H. C. (2021). A systematic review of the evidence for deprescribing interventions among older people living with frailty. BMC Geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-021-02208-8
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.