↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Potentially inappropriate medications in hospitalized older patients: a cross-sectional study using the Beers 2015 criteria versus the 2012 criteria

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
Potentially inappropriate medications in hospitalized older patients: a cross-sectional study using the Beers 2015 criteria versus the 2012 criteria
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, October 2017
DOI 10.2147/cia.s146009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaolin Zhang, Shuang Zhou, Kunming Pan, Xinran Li, Xia Zhao, Ying Zhou, Yimin Cui, Xinmin Liu

Abstract

Polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are prominent prescribing issues in elderly patients. The purpose of the study was to investigate the prevalence of PIMs identified by the Beers 2015 and 2012 criteria in older patients in China and identify the correlates of PIMs. This retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted at Peking University First Hospital. The Beers 2015 and 2012 criteria were applied to evaluate PIMs among hospitalized patients. The associations between PIM use and independent variables were analyzed by logistic regression. The differences between PIM use according to Beers 2012 and 2015 criteria were calculated using chi-squared and kappa tests. A total of 456 patients were analyzed; 244 (53.5%) and 204 (44.7%) patients had at least one PIM identified by the Beers 2015 and 2012 criteria, respectively. The most frequent PIMs were proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), benzodiazepines, and benzodiazepine receptor agonists according to the Beers 2015 criteria. PIMs identified by the Beers 2015 criteria were associated with excessive polypharmacy (OR 1.864, 95% CI 1.210-2.871), a Barthel index ≤60 (OR 1.935, 95% CI 1.056-3.546), and the length of stay (OR 1.066, 95% CI 1.037-1.097). PIM use increased significantly between two criteria (chi-squared test, P<0.001), but good accordance was found between the previous and updated criteria (kappa test 0.782, P<0.001). Our study showed a high prevalence of PIM use in China, which was associated with various correlates. The Beers 2015 criteria detected significantly more PIMs than the 2012 criteria due to the inclusion of PPIs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Other 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 23 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 24 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 26 33%

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 29 November 2017.
All research outputs
#6,409,174
of 12,219,921 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#548
of 1,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,945
of 339,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#22
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,219,921 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 339,496 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 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.