MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170043108 · doi:10.1186/s40360-015-0019-8

Deprescribing benzodiazepines and Z-drugs in community-dwelling adults: a scoping review

2015· review· en· W2170043108 on OpenAlexafffund
André S. Pollmann, Andrea Murphy, Joel Bergman, David M. Gardner

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pharmacology and Toxicology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCollege of Pharmacy, Dalhousie UniversityDalhousie University
KeywordsDeprescribingMedicineCINAHLPsycINFOPsychological interventionBeers CriteriaDiscontinuationRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectMEDLINEPolypharmacyGrey literatureSystematic reviewPsychiatryIntensive care medicinePharmacologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Long-term sedative use is prevalent and associated with significant morbidity, including adverse events such as falls, cognitive impairment, and sedation. The development of dependence can pose significant challenges when discontinuation is attempted as withdrawal symptoms often develop. We conducted a scoping review to map and characterize the literature and determine opportunities for future research regarding deprescribing strategies for long-term benzodiazepine and Z-drug (zopiclone, zolpidem, and zaleplon) use in community-dwelling adults. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, TRIP, and JBI Ovid databases and conducted a grey literature search. Articles discussing methods for deprescribing benzodiazepines or Z-drugs in community-dwelling adults were selected. RESULTS: Following removal of duplicates, 2797 articles were reviewed for eligibility. Of these, 367 were retrieved for full-text assessment and 139 were subsequently included for review. Seventy-four (53%) articles were original research, predominantly randomized controlled trials (n = 52 [37%]), whereas 58 (42%) were narrative reviews and seven (5%) were guidelines. Amongst original studies, pharmacologic strategies were the most commonly studied intervention (n = 42 [57%]). Additional deprescribing strategies included psychological therapies (n = 10 [14%]), mixed interventions (n = 12 [16%]), and others (n = 10 [14%]). Behaviour change interventions were commonly combined and included enablement (n = 56 [76%]), education (n = 36 [47%]), and training (n = 29 [39%]). Gradual dose reduction was frequently a component of studies, reviews, and guidelines, but methods varied widely. CONCLUSIONS: Approaches proposed for deprescribing benzodiazepines and Z-drugs are numerous and heterogeneous. Current research in this area using methods such as randomized trials and meta-analyses may too narrowly encompass potential strategies available to target this phenomenon. Realist synthesis methods would be well suited to understand the mechanisms by which deprescribing interventions work and why they fail.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations110
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Pharmacology and ToxicologySame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207