For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
56
views
83
references
 Top references
cited by
57
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      18
      similar
       All similar

      Clinical Interventions in Aging (submit here)

      This international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal by Dove Medical Press focuses on prevention and treatment of diseases in people over 65 years of age. Sign up for email alerts here.

      36,334 Monthly downloads/views I 3.829 Impact Factor I 7.4 CiteScore I 1.83 Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) I 1.044 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Drug Burden Index in older adults: theoretical and practical issues

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Anticholinergic and sedative medications are commonly used in older adults and are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. The Drug Burden Index was developed to measure the cumulative exposure to these medications in older adults and its impact on physical and cognitive function. This narrative review discusses the research and clinical applications of the Drug Burden Index, and its advantages and limitations, compared with other pharmacologically developed measures of high-risk prescribing.

          Video abstract

          Most cited references83

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review.

          Amit X Garg, Neill K. J. Adhikari, Heather McDonald … (2005)
          Developers of health care software have attributed improvements in patient care to these applications. As with any health care intervention, such claims require confirmation in clinical trials. To review controlled trials assessing the effects of computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and to identify study characteristics predicting benefit. We updated our earlier reviews by searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Inspec, and ISI databases and consulting reference lists through September 2004. Authors of 64 primary studies confirmed data or provided additional information. We included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of a CDSS compared with care provided without a CDSS on practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Teams of 2 reviewers independently abstracted data on methods, setting, CDSS and patient characteristics, and outcomes. One hundred studies met our inclusion criteria. The number and methodologic quality of studies improved over time. The CDSS improved practitioner performance in 62 (64%) of the 97 studies assessing this outcome, including 4 (40%) of 10 diagnostic systems, 16 (76%) of 21 reminder systems, 23 (62%) of 37 disease management systems, and 19 (66%) of 29 drug-dosing or prescribing systems. Fifty-two trials assessed 1 or more patient outcomes, of which 7 trials (13%) reported improvements. Improved practitioner performance was associated with CDSSs that automatically prompted users compared with requiring users to activate the system (success in 73% of trials vs 47%; P = .02) and studies in which the authors also developed the CDSS software compared with studies in which the authors were not the developers (74% success vs 28%; respectively, P = .001). Many CDSSs improve practitioner performance. To date, the effects on patient outcomes remain understudied and, when studied, inconsistent.
          Article 0 comments Cited 650 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Sedative hypnotics in older people with insomnia: meta-analysis of risks and benefits.

            Jennifer S. Glass, Krista L Lanctot, Nathan Herrmann … (2005)
            To quantify and compare potential benefits (subjective reports of sleep variables) and risks (adverse events and morning-after psychomotor impairment) of short term treatment with sedative hypnotics in older people with insomnia. Medline, Embase, the Cochrane clinical trials database, PubMed, and PsychLit, 1966 to 2003; bibliographies of published reviews and meta-analyses; manufacturers of newer sedative hypnotics (zaleplon, zolpidem, zopiclone) regarding unpublished studies. Randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological treatment for insomnia for at least five consecutive nights in people aged 60 or over with insomnia and otherwise free of psychiatric or psychological disorders. 24 studies (involving 2417 participants) with extractable data met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Sleep quality improved (effect size 0.14, P 0.05), and reports of daytime fatigue were 3.82 times more common (1.88 to 7.80, P < 0.001) in people using any sedative compared with placebo. Improvements in sleep with sedative use are statistically significant, but the magnitude of effect is small. The increased risk of adverse events is statistically significant and potentially clinically relevant in older people at risk of falls and cognitive impairment. In people over 60, the benefits of these drugs may not justify the increased risk, particularly if the patient has additional risk factors for cognitive or psychomotor adverse events.
            Article 0 comments Cited 255 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions) and START (Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment). Consensus validation.

              P. Gallagher, C. Ryan, S Byrne … (2008)
              Older people experience more concurrent illnesses, are prescribed more medications and suffer more adverse drug events than younger people. Many drugs predispose older people to adverse events such as falls and cognitive impairment, thus increasing morbidity and health resource utilization. At the same time, older people are often denied potentially beneficial, clinically indicated medications without a valid reason. We aimed to validate a new screening tool of older persons' prescriptions incorporating criteria for potentially inappropriate drugs called STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions) and criteria for potentially appropriate, indicated drugs called START (Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right, i.e. appropriate, indicated Treatment). A Delphi consensus technique was used to establish the content validity of STOPP/START. An 18-member expert panel from academic centers in Ireland and the United Kingdom completed two rounds of the Delphi process by mail survey. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by determining the kappa-statistic for measure of agreement on 100 data-sets. STOPP is comprised of 65 clinically significant criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people. Each criterion is accompanied by a concise explanation as to why the prescribing practice is potentially inappropriate. START consists of 22 evidence-based prescribing indicators for commonly encountered diseases in older people. Inter-rater reliability is favorable with a kappa-coefficient of 0.75 for STOPP and 0.68 for START. STOPP/START is a valid, reliable and comprehensive screening tool that enables the prescribing physician to appraise an older patient's prescription drugs in the context of his/her concurrent diagnoses.
              Article 0 comments Cited 233 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Clin Interv Aging
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Clin Interv Aging
                Journal ID (publisher-id): Clinical Interventions in Aging
                Title: Clinical Interventions in Aging
                Publisher: Dove Medical Press
                ISSN (Print): 1176-9092
                ISSN (Electronic): 1178-1998
                Publication date Collection: 2014
                Publication date (Electronic): 09 September 2014
                Volume: 9
                Pages: 1503-1515
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Kolling Institute of Medical Research and Departments of Clinical Pharmacology and Aged Care, Royal North Shore Hospital, NSW, Australia
                [2 ]Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
                [3 ]Department of Clinical Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Flinders University and Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, SA, Australia
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Lisa Kouladjian, Clinical Pharmacology and Aged Care, Level 12 Kolling Building, Royal North Shore Hospital, Reserve Road, St Leonards, NSW, Australia, 2065 Tel +61 2 9926 4934, Fax +61 2 9926 4053, Email lisa.kouladjian@ 123456sydney.edu.au
                Article
                Publisher ID: cia-9-1503
                DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S66660
                PMC ID: 4166346
                PubMed ID: 25246778
                SO-VID: e7d31fd2-4f55-45bb-a34d-7ed44ee252a5
                Copyright © © 2014 Kouladjian et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License
                License:

                The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                History
                Categories
                Subject: Review

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Health & Social care
                Keywords: drug burden index,anticholinergics,sedative medications,high-risk prescribing,older adults,pharmacological risk assessment tools,deprescribing
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Health & Social care
                Keywords: drug burden index, anticholinergics, sedative medications, high-risk prescribing, older adults, pharmacological risk assessment tools, deprescribing

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content18

                See all similar

                Cited by57

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,233

                See all reference authors