ArticlePloS one2025
The hidden risks of polypharmacy: Exploring potentially inappropriate prescribing with STOPP/START criteria version 3-A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Polypharmacy and inappropriate prescribing are critical challenges in geriatric medicine, leading to adverse drug reactions, hospitalizations, and increased healthcare costs. The updated STOPP/START version 3 criteria provide an expanded tool for identifying potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potentially prescribing omissions (PPOs) in older adults. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of PIMs and PPOs in a cohort of partially dependent older patients and identify factors associated with prescribing inappropriateness. A retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted in two day-care centres in Poland. The study included 296 patients with polypharmacy (≥5 medications) and partial dependency. PIMs and PPOs were identified using STOPP/START version 3, and data were analyzed for factors influencing the prevalence of inappropriate prescribing. STOPP version 3 identified 543 PIMs in 73.6% of participants, with the most frequent related to analgesics as well as acetylsalicylic acid in cardiovascular indications. START version 3 detected 517 PPOs in 78.7% of patients, with cardiovascular treatments and laxatives being the most commonly omitted. Factors influencing PIMs prevalence included the number of received medications, the diagnosis of depression, and recurrent falls in the previous year. PPOs prevalence was significantly associated with multimorbidity, a high number of received medications, the diagnosis of heart failure, coronary artery disease, benign prostate hyperplasia and depression. Our study highlights the importance of using tools for optimizing pharmacotherapy due to the high prevalence of both PIMs and PPOs. Many frequent inappropriate prescribing regard relatively new medications and refer to recent updates in evidence-based medicine.
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.