↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Potentially inappropriate medications use in community-based aged patients: a cross-sectional study using 2012 Beers criteria

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Potentially inappropriate medications use in community-based aged patients: a cross-sectional study using 2012 Beers criteria
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, January 2017
DOI 10.2147/cia.s87564
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rony Zeenny, Samira Wakim, Yara-Mary Kuyumjian

Abstract

Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) should be avoided by the aged population. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of PIMs among Lebanese aged outpatients using Beers criteria of 2012. The secondary objectives were to identify the correlates of the PIMs use and to compare the PIMs prevalence rates as per Beers criteria of 2003 and 2012. This cross-sectional observational study was conducted among aged outpatients of different accredited community pharmacies across Lebanon. Data were collected through a validated questionnaire. The Beers criteria of 2012 were used to evaluate PIMs. The association between PIMs used and independent variables were analyzed by logistic regression. The differences between PIMs use according to Beers criteria 2003 and 2012 were calculated using chi-squared and McNemar's tests. A total of 248 outpatients were analyzed. We identified 112 (45.2%) out of 248 patients taking PIMs. The leading classes of medications identified to cause PIMs were those acting on the central nervous system (71.4%). The factors associated with PIMs use were age, osteoporosis, Alzheimer/dementia, diabetes, and alcohol consumption. PIMs use increased significantly between Beers criteria 2003 and 2012 (Chi-squared test, P<0.001; McNemar's test, P<0.001). Our study showed a high prevalence of PIMs use in Lebanon, which is associated with various correlates. Education of health care providers and medication review should be considered to improve medication safety of older adults.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 23%
Unspecified 8 20%
Other 6 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 9 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 33%
Unspecified 11 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 1 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 September 2018.
All research outputs
#6,482,541
of 12,698,622 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#543
of 1,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,833
of 367,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#21
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,698,622 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 367,248 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.