ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2026
Evidence on interventions that target prescribing appropriateness in older adults attending the emergency department and other acute care settings: a scoping review.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2026. 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.
- Evidence on interventions that target prescribing appropriateness in older adults attending the emergency department and other acute care settings: a scoping review.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPotentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) has been associated with various adverse clinical outcomes, particularly in the context of ageing, multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Despite growing interest in front door frailty initiatives in the emergency department (ED) and acute geriatric units (AGUs), no review has focused specifically on interventions targeting PIP, as defined by validated criteria, across both ED and AGU settings.
aimThis scoping review aimed to map the evidence on interventions addressing PIP in older adults attending EDs or AGUs, identify evidence gaps and highlight areas for future research.
methodThis scoping review was conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist. Medline, Embase, CINAHL Ultimate, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL and grey literature sources were searched from 1991 to 2025 for studies evaluating interventions targeting PIP, defined using validated criteria, in adults aged ≥ 65 years attending the ED or AGUs.
resultsOur search returned 8643 results. Twenty-one studies were identified for inclusion, four of which were randomised controlled trials. The 18 interventions identified encompassed pharmacist-led medication reviews, clinical decision support systems (CDSS), educational/academic detailing programmes or combined approaches. While PIP was frequently a primary outcome measure, few studies reported clinical outcomes or explored prescriber adherence and experiences of older adults and prescribers.
conclusionPharmacist-led medication reviews, CDSS and educational/academic detailing were the main intervention approaches identified. Evidence was heterogeneous and focused mainly on prescribing-related outcomes, with limited assessment of clinical outcomes, prescriber adherence, communication pathways and stakeholder feedback. Future studies should incorporate longer-term follow-up and evaluate patient-centred and implementation outcomes.
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.