Defining polypharmacy in the elderly: a systematic review protocol.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mortazavi SS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4809106 | biostudies-other | 2016 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:Polypharmacy, the concurrent use of multiple medications, consistently evokes a negative connotation, notably because it is associated with a plethora of adverse events. Nonetheless, the number of individuals exposed to polypharmacy is increasing steeply, especially for older people with multiple diseases. There is a need to carefully study the phenomenon at the population scale to full assess the associated health outcomes. Yet, this reveals a complex task because there exists no consensus indicator of polypharmacy. In fact, the definitions of polypharmacy are heterogeneous and its predisposing factors and associated outcomes are not well defined. The goal of this systematic review is to summarize the literature on polypharmacy in multimorbid individuals aged 65 years and over, targeting three objectives: (1) to identify the definitions of polypharmacy that are used in the context of multimorbidity among older individuals (?65 years); (2) to ascertain predisposing and concurrent factors associated with polypharmacy; and (3) to describe positive and negative outcomes of polypharmacy among older individuals, including hospitalizations, mortality and costs.We will include publications from 2004 to 2016 that target four concepts: polypharmacy, older individuals, multimorbidity and positive/negative outcomes. The search will be performed using EBM Reviews, Embase, Global Health, MEDLINE, AgeLine, CINAHL, Health Policy Reference Center, Public Affairs Index, SocINDEX and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers will screen the articles, extract the information and evaluate the methodological quality of included studies. The results will be presented in tables and narrative summaries will be performed. We will perform meta-analyses (objective 3) if the heterogeneity is not important.This review will help describe the various ways of conceptualizing polypharmacy and how it is associated with health outcomes. We have selected outcomes most relevant for public surveillance performed with administrative databases. Other positive and negative outcomes have been associated with polypharmacy but may not be included in the review.PROSPERO CRD42014014989.
| S-EPMC5438541 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesLack of consensus regarding the semantics and definitions of pediatric polypharmacy challenges researchers and clinicians alike. We conducted a scoping review to describe definitions and terminology of pediatric polypharmacy.MethodsMedline, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, and the Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched for English language articles with the concepts of "polypharmacy" and "children". Data were extracted about study characteristics, polypharmacy terms and definitions from qualifying studies, and were synthesized by disease conditions.ResultsOut of 4,398 titles, we included 363 studies: 324 (89%) provided numeric definitions, 131 (36%) specified duration of polypharmacy, and 162 (45%) explicitly defined it. Over 81% (n = 295) of the studies defined polypharmacy as two or more medications or therapeutic classes. The most common comprehensive definitions of pediatric polypharmacy included: two or more concurrent medications for ≥1 day (n = 41), two or more concurrent medications for ≥31 days (n = 15), and two or more sequential medications over one year (n = 12). Commonly used terms included polypharmacy, polytherapy, combination pharmacotherapy, average number, and concomitant medications. The term polypharmacy was more common in psychiatry literature while epilepsy literature favored the term polytherapy.ConclusionsTwo or more concurrent medications, without duration, for ≥1 day, ≥31 days, or sequentially for one year were the most common definitions of pediatric polypharmacy. We recommend that pediatric polypharmacy studies specify the number of medications or therapeutic classes, if they are concurrent or sequential, and the duration of medications. We propose defining pediatric polypharmacy as "the prescription or consumption of two or more distinct medications for at least one day". The term "polypharmacy" should be included among key words and definitions in manuscripts.
| S-EPMC6264483 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:The rates of suicide in the elderly population are generally higher than other age groups. Models of suicide that explain the phenomenon of suicide in later life may have research, clinical and educational implications for the field of ageing. The primary purpose of this systematic review is to identify and review existing models of suicide that have a particular focus on the elderly. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The authors intend reviewing the findings of observational studies including cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, and qualitative studies such as grounded theory designs which are published in Google Scholar, Scopus, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and research-related journals. Models of suicide which specifically describe, explain and predict late life suicides will be included. Therapeutic, interventional and rehabilitation models, as well as models related to assisted suicide, will be excluded. The EndNote software will be employed for data management. Two independent reviewers will extract data. Methodological quality and the risk of bias of quantitative studies will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale adapted for cross-sectional studies, while that of qualitative studies will be assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and the evaluative criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. The final report will present a range of models of suicide with a list of different subgroups. ETHICS AND PUBLICATION:There are no predictable ethical issues related to this study. The findings will be published in prestigious journals and presented at international and national conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017070982.
| S-EPMC6196840 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundSocialization is an important part of the healthy aging process, but natural changes in the lifestyle and health of older people increased risk of loneliness. However, loneliness is not well defined and might differ in different cultures and settings. The main objective of this systematic review is to summarize literature on the topic and propose a definition that might help aging research and practice in the future.MethodsEight databases including PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Proquest, and Age Line bibliographic will be run individually to retrieve relevant literature on loneliness among elderly population using subject headings and appropriate MeSH terms. Inclusion and exclusion criteria will be developed and refined by the research team. Two reviewers will participate in each search stage including abstract/title and full text screening, data extraction, and appraisal. We will restrict our search to articles published in the English language biomedical journal between 2000 and 2017. The protocol adheres to the standards recommended by the PRISMA-P.DiscussionThe results of this systematic review can present a more accurate definition of loneliness for researchers who aim at conducting new primary and secondary studies on this subject.Systematic review registrationCRD42017058729.
| S-EPMC6335854 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionA never event is the most egregious of patient safety incidents. It refers to events that should theoretically never happen, such amputating the wrong limb. The term "never event" is used around the world by a variety of medical and patient safety organizations and is synonymous with sentinel events and serious reportable events. Unfortunately, there is little consensus about which events, in particular, are never events. These differing lists hinder potential collaboration or large-scale analyses. A recent systematic review by Hegarty et al. (2020) identified the need for a standardized definition for serious reportable events. The objective of our systematic review is to build on this by identifying which events are consistently or frequently identified as never events in order to isolate those which are core never events.Materials and methodsA systematic review will be conducted using Medline, Medline in Process, Scopus, PsychINFO, Embase via OVID, and CINAHL via EBSCO databases, as well as grey literature. We will include articles of any study design that discuss never events or one of its synonymous terms in the context of medical care. Four independent reviewers will conduct the title and abstract as well as the full-text screening, and 2 reviewers will abstract data. Data will be analyzed using narrative synthesis. Results will be categorized by year and geographic location, and by other factors determined during full-text screening.Discussion and conclusionThe lack of consensus regarding never events hinders progress in reducing their occurrence. Differing data sources makes comparison challenging, and limits the ability for patient safety groups to work collaboratively and share learnings with others. Identifying a core set of never events will serve as a first step to focus our efforts to reduce these harmful incidents.
| S-EPMC9754204 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe use of medications among pregnant women has been rising over the past few decades but the reporting of polypharmacy has been sporadic. The objective of this review is to identify literature reporting the prevalence of polypharmacy among pregnant women, the prevalence of multimorbidity in women taking multiple medications in pregnancy and associated effects on maternal and offspring outcomes.DesignMEDLINE and Embase were searched from their inception to 14 September 2021 for interventional trials, observational studies and systematic reviews reporting on the prevalence of polypharmacy or the use of multiple medications in pregnancy were included.Data on prevalence of polypharmacy, prevalence of multimorbidity, combinations of medications and pregnancy and offspring outcomes were extracted. A descriptive analysis was performed.ResultsFourteen studies met the review criteria. The prevalence of women being prescribed two or more medications during pregnancy ranged from 4.9% (4.3%-5.5%) to 62.4% (61.3%-63.5%), with a median of 22.5%. For the first trimester, prevalence ranged from 4.9% (4.7%-5.14%) to 33.7% (32.2%-35.1%). No study reported on the prevalence of multimorbidity, or associated pregnancy outcomes in women exposed to polypharmacy.ConclusionThere is a significant burden of polypharmacy among pregnant women. There is a need for evidence on the combinations of medications prescribed in pregnancy, how this specifically affects women with multiple long-term conditions and the associated benefits and harms.Tweetable abstractOur systematic review shows significant burden of polypharmacy in pregnancy but outcomes for women and offspring are unknown.Prospero registration numberCRD42021223966.
| S-EPMC9990613 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is conflicting evidence on the association between antipsychotic polypharmacy and metabolic syndrome in schizophrenia. We conducted a review of published systematic reviews to evaluate evidence on the association between metabolic syndrome (diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidaemia) and exposure to antipsychotic polypharmacy in schizophrenia.We searched five electronic databases, complemented by reference screening, to find systematic reviews that investigated the association of antipsychotic polypharmacy in schizophrenia with hypertension, diabetes, or hyperlipidaemia. Selection of reviews, data extraction and review quality were conducted independently by two people and disagreements resolved by discussion. Results were synthesised narratively.We included 12 systematic reviews, which reported heterogeneous results, mostly with narrative syntheses and without pooled data. The evidence was rated as low quality. There was some indication of a possible protective effect of drug combinations including aripiprazole for diabetes and hyperlipidaemias, compared to other combinations and/or monotherapy. Only one review reported the association between APP and hypertension. The most frequently reported combinations of medication included clozapine, possibly representing a sample of patients with treatment resistant illness. No included review reported results separately by setting (primary or secondary care).Further robust studies are needed to elucidate the possible protective effect of aripiprazole. Long-term prospective studies are required for accurate appraisal of diabetes risk, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia in patients exposed to antipsychotic polypharmacy.
| S-EPMC6122457 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionPrecision health is a nascent field of research that would benefit from clearer operationalisation and distinction from adjacent fields like precision medicine. This clarification is necessary to enable precision health science to tackle some of the most complex and significant health problems that are faced globally. There is a pressing need to examine the progress in human precision health research in the past 10 years and analyse this data to first, find similarities and determine discordances in how precision health is operationalised in the literature and second, identify gaps and future directions for precision health research.Methods and analysisTo define precision health and map research in this field, a scoping review will be undertaken and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses - Scoping Review Extension guidelines. Systematic searches of scientific databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and PsycINFO) and grey literature sources (Google Scholar, Google Patents) identified 8053 potentially eligible articles published from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2020. Following removal of duplicates, a total of 3190 articles were imported for screening. Article data will be extracted using a customised extraction template on Covidence and analysed descriptively using narrative synthesis.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated through professional networks, conference presentations and publication in a scientific journal.
| S-EPMC7888329 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Life expectancy continues to increase in developed countries. Elderly people are more likely to consume more medications and become vulnerable to age-related changes in drugs' pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Recent studies have identified opportunities and barriers for deprescribing potentially inappropriate medications. It has already been demonstrated that computerised decision support systems can reduce physician orders for unnecessary tests. We will systematically review the available literature to understand if computerised decision support is effective in reducing the use of potentially inappropriate medications, thus having an impact on health outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A systematic review will be conducted using MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE and Web of Science databases, as well as the grey literature assessing the effectiveness of computer decision support interventions in deprescribing inappropriate medication, with an impact on health outcomes in the elderly. The search will be performed during January and February 2018. Two reviewers will conduct articles' screening, selection and data extraction, independently and blind to each other. Eligible sources will be selected after discussing non-conformities. All extracted data from the included articles will be assessed based on studies' participants, design and setting, methodological quality, bias and any other potential sources of heterogeneity. This review will be conducted and reported in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement of quality for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:As a systematic review, this research is exempt from ethical approval. We intend to publish the full article in a related peer-reviewed journal and present it at international conferences. PROSPEROREGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017067021.
| S-EPMC5829874 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe reporting of randomised controlled non-inferiority (NI) drug trials is poor with less than 50% of published trials reporting a justification of the NI margin. This is despite the introduction of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension on reporting of NI and equivalence in randomised trials. It is critical to set the appropriate NI margin as this choice dictates the conclusions of the trial. Methods to estimate the margin are heterogeneous but generally based on clinical judgement and statistical reasoning, and hence tailored to each clinical situation. Yet an appraisal of NI in clinical trials has not been undertaken. Therefore the aim of this systematic review is to assess the reporting and methodological quality of defining the NI margin. Surgical NI trials have been chosen as our prototype to assess this.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review of published randomised controlled trials in abdominal surgery that use an NI design. Key eligibility criteria will be: surgical intervention in at least one trial arm; adult patients and a sample size of 100 or more. Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched from inception until the date of the search. Identified studies will be assessed for reporting according to the CONSORT recommendations. The outcomes are the description of the methods for defining the NI margin, and the robustness of the NI margin estimation. The latter will be based on simulations using alternative assumptions for model parameters. The results of the simulation will be compared with the trial authors' conclusions.Anticipated resultsThe review will describe and appraise the design and reporting of surgical NI trials including shortcomings thereof and allow a comparison with pharmaceutical trials. These findings will inform researchers on the appropriate design and pitfalls when conducting surgical randomised controlled trials with an NI design and promote thorough and standardised reporting of study findings.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required and any changes to the protocol will be communicated via the registration platform. The final manuscript will be submitted to a journal for publication and the findings will be disseminated through conference presentations to inform researchers and the public.
| S-EPMC11344494 | biostudies-literature