MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163255710 · doi:10.1186/s13063-021-05711-w

Deprescribing to reduce polypharmacy: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial assessing deprescribing of anticholinergic and sedative drugs in a cohort of frail older people living in the community

2021· article· en· W3163255710 on OpenAlexaff
Ulrich Bergler, Nagham Ailabouni, John W. Pickering, Sarah N. Hilmer, Dee Mangin, Prasad S. Nishtala, Hamish A. Jamieson

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersHealth Research Council of New ZealandCanterbury District Health Board
KeywordsDeprescribingMedicinePolypharmacyAnticholinergicPharmacistSedativeBeers CriteriaRandomized controlled trialChecklistPopulationGeriatricsAdverse effectPsychiatryIntensive care medicineFamily medicineAnesthesiaPharmacyPharmacologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Targeted deprescribing of anticholinergic and sedative medications in older people may improve their health outcomes. This trial will determine if pharmacist-led reviews lead to general practitioners deprescribing anticholinergic and sedative medications in older people living in the community. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The standard protocol items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist was used to develop and report the protocol. The trial will involve older adults stratified by frailty (low, medium, and high). This will be a pragmatic two-arm randomized controlled trial to test general practitioner uptake of pharmacist recommendations to deprescribe anticholinergic and sedative medications that are causing adverse side effects in patients. STUDY POPULATION: Community-dwelling frail adults, 65 years or older, living in the Canterbury region of New Zealand, seeking publicly funded home support services or admission to aged residential care and taking at least one anticholinergic or sedative medication regularly. INTERVENTION: New Zealand registered pharmacists using peer-reviewed deprescribing guidelines will visit participants at home in the community, review their medications, and recommend anticholinergic and sedative medications that could be deprescribed to the participant's general practitioner. The total use of anticholinergic and sedative medications will be quantified using the Drug Burden Index (DBI). OUTCOMES: The primary outcome will be the change in total DBI between baseline and 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include entry into aged residential care, prolonged hospitalization, and death. DATA COLLECTION POINTS: Data will be collected at the time of interRAI assessments (T0), at the time of the baseline review (T1), at 6 months following the baseline review (T2), and at the end of the study period, or end of study participation for participants admitted into aged residential care, or who died (T3). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Human, Disability and Ethics Committee: ethical number (17CEN265). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ACTRN12618000729224 . Registered on May 2, 2018, with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.008
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0100.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0920.016

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 head0.309
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207