Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 341

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 109 of the 109 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prevalence and factors associated with polypharmacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Delara, Mahin, Murray, Lauren, Jafari, Behnaz, Bahji, Anees, Goodarzi, Zahra, Kirkham, Julia, Chowdhury, Mohammad, Seitz, Dallas P.·2022·BMC Geriatrics

Abstract

Introduction: Polypharmacy is commonly associated with adverse health outcomes. There are currently no meta-analyses of the prevalence of polypharmacy or factors associated with polypharmacy. We aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of polypharmacy and factors associated with polypharmacy in a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies with no restrictions on date. We included observational studies that reported on the prevalence of polypharmacy among individuals over age 19. Two reviewers extracted study characteristics including polypharmacy definitions, study design, setting, geography, and participant demographics. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scales. The main outcome was the prevalence of polypharmacy and factors associated with polypharmacy prevalence. The pooled prevalence estimates of polypharmacy with 95% confidence intervals were determined using random effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were undertaken to evaluate factors associated with polypharmacy such as polypharmacy definitions, study setting, study design and geography. Meta-regression was conducted to assess the associations between polypharmacy prevalence and study year. Results: 106 full-text articles were identified. The pooled estimated prevalence of polypharmacy in the 54 studies reporting on polypharmacy in all medication classes was 37% (95% CI: 31-43%). Differences in polypharmacy prevalence were reported for studies using different numerical thresholds, study setting, and publication year. Sex, study geography, study design and geographical location were not associated with differences in polypharmacy prevalence. Discussion: Our review highlights that polypharmacy is common particularly among older adults and those in inpatient settings. Clinicians should be aware of populations who have an increased likelihood of experiencing polypharmacy and efforts should be made to review the appropriateness of prescribed medications and occurrence of adverse effects potentially associated with polypharmacy. Conclusions and implications: Clinicians should be aware of the common occurrence of polypharmacy and undertake efforts to minimize inappropriate polypharmacy whenever possible.

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 · 10.1186/s12877-022-03279-x

Cites

109 of 109 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 109 references

Cited by

See all 341

Metadata

Authors
Delara, M., Murray, L., Jafari, B., Bahji, A., Goodarzi, Z., Kirkham, J., Chowdhury, M., & Seitz, D. P.
Venue
BMC Geriatrics
Published
2022-07-19
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
601-601
ISSN
1471-2318 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4286218443
Cited by
341
References
109
FWCI
12.70
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: Prevalence and factors associated with polypharmacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s12877-022-03279-x
The paper
Delara, M., Murray, L., Jafari, B., Bahji, A., Goodarzi, Z., Kirkham, J., Chowdhury, M., & Seitz, D. P. (2022). Prevalence and factors associated with polypharmacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-022-03279-x

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.