Quality of anticholinergic burden scales and their impact on clinical outcomes: a systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Older people are at risk of anticholinergic side effects due to changes affecting drug elimination and higher sensitivity to drug's side effects. Anticholinergic burden scales (ABS) were developed to quantify the anticholinergic drug burden (ADB). We aim to identify all published ABS, to compare them systematically and to evaluate their associations with clinical outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a literature search in MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify all published ABS and a Web of Science citation (WoS) analysis to track validation studies implying clinical outcomes. Quality of the ABS was assessed using an adapted AGREE II tool. For the validation studies, we used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane tool Rob2.0. The validation studies were categorized into six evidence levels based on the propositions of the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine with respect to their quality. At least two researchers independently performed screening and quality assessments. RESULTS: Out of 1297 records, we identified 19 ABS and 104 validations studies. Despite differences in quality, all ABS were recommended for use. The anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale and the German anticholinergic burden scale (GABS) achieved the highest percentage in quality. Most ABS are validated, yet validation studies for newer scales are lacking. Only two studies compared eight ABS simultaneously. The four most investigated clinical outcomes delirium, cognition, mortality and falls showed contradicting results. CONCLUSION: There is need for good quality validation studies comparing multiple scales to define the best scale and to conduct a meta-analysis for the assessment of their clinical impact.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it