Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40577011›Full record

SynthesisJAMA network open2025

Interventions to Address Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing for Older Primary Care Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Nav Persaud, Aine Workentin, Amal Rizvi, Tiphaine Pierson, Émilie Bortolussi-Courval, Kathy Liu, Alexandria Bennett, Nicole Shaver, Becky Skidmore, Niyati Vyas and 7 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Screening for potentially inappropriate prescribing in primary care: Canadian guideline.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2026
    Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Nav PersaudMAP Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Aine WorkentinMAP Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Amal RizviMAP Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Tiphaine PiersonCanadian Medication Appropriateness and Deprescribing Network, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Émilie Bortolussi-CourvalCentre for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Kathy LiuCentre for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Alexandria BennettSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Nicole ShaverSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Becky SkidmoreSkidmore Research & Information Consulting Inc, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Niyati VyasSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Robert PapSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Faris AlmoliSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Todd C LeeClinical Practice Assessment Unit, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Caroline SiroisFaculty of Pharmacy, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada.
Rita K McCrackenDepartment of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Louise Papillon-FerlandFaculté de Pharmacie, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Emily G McDonaldCanadian Medication Appropriateness and Deprescribing Network, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Prescriptions for potentially inappropriate medications are common and, by definition, may carry risks that outweigh benefits. Objective: To determine whether interventions to address potentially inappropriate prescribing for older primary care patients are associated with changes in the number of medications prescribed, drug-related harms, hospitalizations, and mortality. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to September 6, 2024. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials of interventions to address potentially inappropriate prescribing for older primary care patients (aged ≥65 years) residing in the community or in long-term care facilities, such as nursing homes or assisted-living facilities, were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two researchers independently screened the records and abstracted data using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data were pooled using random-effects models. Main Outcomes and Measures: The planned outcomes were the number of medications, nonserious adverse drug reactions, injurious falls, quality of life, medical visits, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using the inverse variance method for similar studies, reporting risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs). Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 values, and publication bias was assessed with funnel plots and the Egger regression test. Results: Of the 14 649 records identified, 118 randomized clinical trials (comprising 417 412 patients) were included in this review. Interventions to address potentially inappropriate prescribing were associated with a reduction in the number of medications prescribed (SMD, -0.25 [95% CI, -0.38 to -0.13]), equivalent to approximately 0.5 fewer medications per patient. However, there were no substantial differences in the other outcomes, including nonserious adverse drug reactions (RR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.58-1.46]), injurious falls (SMD, 0.01 [95% CI, -0.12 to 0.14]), quality of life (SMD, 0.09 [95% CI, -0.04 to 0.23]), medical visits (SMD, 0.02 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.07]), emergency department admissions (RR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.96-1.08]), hospitalizations (RR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.89-1.02]), or all-cause mortality (RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.85-1.04]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, interventions to address potentially inappropriate prescribing were associated with reductions in the number of medications prescribed, with no substantial change in other outcomes. These findings suggest that inappropriate prescribing interventions may be implemented to safely reduce the number of medications prescribed to older adults in the primary care setting. Future studies should continue to evaluate these interventions using standardized criteria and consistently report potential harms to support data synthesis and capture key outcomes such as quality of life, hospitalization, and mortality.

Indexed as

Inappropriate PrescribingPrimary Health CareAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHospitalizationHumansMalePotentially Inappropriate Medication ListRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID40577011
PMCPMC12205406

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.