ArticleBMC psychiatry2024
Screening indicators to evaluate the clinical significance of drug-drug interactions in polypharmacy among older adults with psychiatric disorders: a delphi study.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development of a medication literacy assessment scale for patients with mental disorders in recovery in China: a mixed-methods Delphi study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPolypharmacy is common in older adults with psychiatric disorders, but no consensus has reached about the reliable indicators evaluating the benefits and risks of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in polypharmacy. We aimed to identify indicators suitable for evaluating the clinical significance of DDIs in polypharmacy in older adults with psychiatric disorders.
methodsThe online tools were used to distribute and collect the questionnaires. The Delphi method was applied to analyze experts' opinions. The degree of authority and coordination of experts were analyzed using the coefficient of variation, coefficient of coordination, expert's judgment factor, familiarity with the study content factor, and Kendall coordination coefficient. Statistical analysis was conducted using the IBM SPSS® Statistics Package version 26.0.
resultsAfter three rounds of expert consultation, five primary and eleven secondary indicators were identified. The primary "pharmacodynamic indicator" included "severity of adverse drug reactions", "duration of adverse drug reaction", "symptom relief", "time to onset of symptomatic relief", "number of days in hospital", and "duration of medication". The secondary "pharmacokinetic indicator" contained "dosage administered" and "dosing intervals". The primary "patient tolerance indicator" contained one secondary indicator of "patient tolerability". The primary indicator "patient adherence" contained one secondary indicator of "patient adherence to medication". The primary indicator "cost of drug combination" contained one secondary indicator of "readmission". These indicators were used to determine the clinical significance of DDIs during polypharmacy.
conclusionsThe clinical significance of drug combinations should be taken into account when polypharmacy is used in the elderly. The five primary indicators and eleven secondary indicators might be preferred to evaluate their risks and benefits. Medication management in this population requires a multidisciplinary team, in which nurses play a key role. Future research should focus on how to establish efficient multidisciplinary team workflows and use functional factors to assess DDIs in polypharmacy for psychiatric disorders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.