MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902708442

Deprescribing antihyperglycemic agents in older persons: Evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

2017· article· en· W2902708442 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara Farrell, Cody Black, Wade Thompson, Lisa McCarthy, Carlos Rojas‐Fernandez, Heather Lochnan, Salima Shamji, Ross Upshur, Manon Bouchard, Vivian Welch

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioOttawa HospitalResearch Institute for AgingWomen's College HospitalUniversity of OttawaBruyère
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeprescribingGuidelineMedicineMEDLINEGrading (engineering)Systematic reviewFamily medicineNursingPolypharmacyIntensive care medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To develop an evidence-based guideline to help clinicians make decisions about when and how to safely taper, stop, or switch antihyperglycemic agents in older adults. METHODS: We focused on the highest level of evidence available and sought input from primary care professionals in guideline development, review, and endorsement processes. Seven clinicians (2 family physicians, 3 pharmacists, 1 nurse practitioner, and 1 endocrinologist) and a methodologist comprised the overall team; members disclosed conflicts of interest. We used a rigorous process, including the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach, for guideline development. We conducted a systematic review to assess evidence for the benefits and harms of deprescribing antihyperglycemic agents. We performed a review of reviews of the harms of continued antihyperglycemic medication use, and narrative syntheses of patient preferences and resource implications. We used these syntheses and GRADE quality-of-evidence ratings to generate recommendations. The team refined guideline content and recommendation wording through consensus and synthesized clinical considerations to address common front-line clinician questions. The draft guideline was distributed to clinicians and stakeholders for review and revisions were made at each stage. A decision-support algorithm was developed to accompany the guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS: We recommend deprescribing antihyperglycemic medications known to contribute to hypoglycemia in older adults at risk or in situations where antihyperglycemic medications might be causing other adverse effects, and individualizing targets and deprescribing accordingly for those who are frail, have dementia, or have a limited life expectancy. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides practical recommendations for making decisions about deprescribing antihyperglycemic agents. Recommendations are meant to assist with, not dictate, decision making in conjunction with patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.194 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations145
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207