Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 246

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Deprescribing in Frail Older People: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Open access
Potter, Kathleen, Flicker, Leon, Page, Amy, Etherton-Beer, Christopher·2016·PLOS ONE

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Deprescribing has been proposed as a way to reduce polypharmacy in frail older people. We aimed to reduce the number of medicines consumed by people living in residential aged care facilities (RACF). Secondary objectives were to explore the effect of deprescribing on survival, falls, fractures, hospital admissions, cognitive, physical, and bowel function, quality of life, and sleep. METHODS: Ninety-five people aged over 65 years living in four RACF in rural mid-west Western Australia were randomised in an open study. The intervention group (n = 47) received a deprescribing intervention, the planned cessation of non-beneficial medicines. The control group (n = 48) received usual care. Participants were monitored for twelve months from randomisation. Primary outcome was change in the mean number of unique regular medicines. All outcomes were assessed at baseline, six, and twelve months. RESULTS: Study participants had a mean age of 84.3 ± 6.9 years and 52% were female. Intervention group participants consumed 9.6 ± 5.0 and control group participants consumed 9.5 ± 3.6 unique regular medicines at baseline. Of the 348 medicines targeted for deprescribing (7.4 ± 3.8 per person, 78% of regular medicines), 207 medicines (4.4 ± 3.4 per person, 59% of targeted medicines) were successfully discontinued. The mean change in number of regular medicines at 12 months was -1.9 ± 4.1 in intervention group participants and +0.1 ± 3.5 in control group participants (estimated difference 2.0 ± 0.9, 95%CI 0.08, 3.8, p = 0.04). Twelve intervention participants and 19 control participants died within 12 months of randomisation (26% versus 40% mortality, p = 0.16, HR 0.60, 95%CI 0.30 to 1.22) There were no significant differences between groups in other secondary outcomes. The main limitations of this study were the open design and small participant numbers. CONCLUSIONS: Deprescribing reduced the number of regular medicines consumed by frail older people living in residential care with no significant adverse effects on survival or other clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12611000370909.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0149984

Cites

9 of 9 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 9 references

Cited by

See all 246

Metadata

Authors
Potter, K., Flicker, L., Page, A., & Etherton-Beer, C.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2016-03-04
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
e0149984
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2288614434
Cited by
246
References
9
FWCI
13.78
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: Deprescribing in Frail Older People: A Randomised Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0149984
The paper
Potter, K., Flicker, L., Page, A., & Etherton-Beer, C. (2016). Deprescribing in Frail Older People: A Randomised Controlled Trial. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149984

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.