Use of potentially inappropriate medications among ambulatory home-dwelling elderly patients with dementia: A review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older adults with dementia are at high risk for drug-related adverse outcomes. While much is known about potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults, its prevalence and characteristics among those with dementia are not as well elucidated. We conducted a literature review to examine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication use among home-dwelling older adults with dementia. Our secondary aim was to determine the most frequently implicated medications and factors associated with potentially inappropriate medication use. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts were searched between 1946 and 2014 for articles that referenced potentially inappropriate medication use and types of dementia. One reviewer screened all titles and abstracts from the initial search and full-text articles after the initial screen for eligibility, then 2 reviewers independently abstracted data from included studies. RESULTS: Searches yielded 81 articles, of which 7 met inclusion criteria. Prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication use varied from 15% to 46.8%. No single drug or drug class was reported consistently across all studies as the most frequent potentially inappropriate medication, but anticholinergics and benzodiazepines, drugs that affect cognition, were among the most common medications or pharmacological classes listed. DISCUSSION: Older adults with dementia may be particularly vulnerable to potentially inappropriate medications because of cognitive impairment from their condition and the greater likelihood of experiencing adverse events from medications. Given this population's greater susceptibility to adverse events, more intense medication and patient monitoring may be warranted, especially among those taking anticholinergics and benzodiazepines, as these drugs can contribute to cognitive impairment.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".