Department of Social and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy in Hradec Kralove, Charles University, Hradec Kralove, 500 05, Czech Republic.
Department of Geriatrics and Gerontology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, 121 08, Czech Republic.
Sci Rep. 2022 Oct 6;12(1):16774. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-19860-8.
We aimed to systematically review the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in older adults in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) in all care settings. We searched Embase and MEDLINE (up to June 2019) and checked the reference lists of the included studies and relevant reviews. Eligible studies used validated explicit or implicit tools to assess the PIP prevalence in older adults in CEE. All study designs were considered, except case‒control studies and case series. We assessed the risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis was inappropriate due to heterogeneity in the outcome measurements. Therefore, we used the synthesis without meta-analysis approach-summarizing effect estimates method. This review included twenty-seven studies with 139,693 participants. Most studies were cross-sectional and conducted in high-income countries. The data synthesis across 26 studies revealed the PIP prevalence: the median was 34.6%, the interquartile range was 25.9-63.2%, and the range was 6.5-95.8%. The certainty of this evidence was very low due to the risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. These findings show that PIP is a prevalent issue in the CEE region. Further well-designed studies conducted across countries are needed to strengthen the existing evidence and increase the generalizability of findings.
我们旨在系统地综述中东欧(CEE)所有医疗保健环境中老年人潜在不适当处方(PIP)的流行情况。我们检索了 Embase 和 MEDLINE(截至 2019 年 6 月),并查阅了纳入研究和相关综述的参考文献列表。合格研究使用经过验证的明确或隐含工具来评估 CEE 老年人的 PIP 流行情况。除了病例对照研究和病例系列研究外,所有研究设计都被考虑在内。我们使用 Joanna Briggs 研究所流行率批判性评估工具评估偏倚风险,并使用 GRADE 方法评估证据确定性。由于结局测量存在异质性,不适合进行荟萃分析。因此,我们使用了综合而不进行荟萃分析的方法——总结效应估计方法。本综述纳入了 27 项研究,共涉及 139693 名参与者。大多数研究为横断面研究,在高收入国家进行。26 项研究的数据综合显示,PIP 的流行率为:中位数为 34.6%,四分位距为 25.9-63.2%,范围为 6.5-95.8%。由于存在偏倚、不精确和不一致,因此该证据的确定性非常低。这些发现表明,PIP 在 CEE 地区是一个普遍存在的问题。需要在各国开展更多精心设计的研究,以加强现有证据并提高研究结果的普遍性。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-2-1
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-9-3
Front Med (Lausanne). 2024-8-29
JAMA Netw Open. 2024-6-3
Value Health Reg Issues. 2021-9