Use of Potentially Inappropriate Medications among Older Adults with Dementia or Cognitive Impairment Attending Memory Clinics: A Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Older adults with dementia who are on multiple medications are more vulnerable to the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), which can significantly increase the risk of adverse events and drug-related problems. PIMs use is prevalent and varies among older adults with dementia or cognitive impairment (CI) attending memory clinics. However, the prevalence of PIMs, polypharmacy, and hyper-polypharmacy among older adults with dementia or CI who are attending memory clinics is not well understood. We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analyses to examine the overall estimate of the prevalence of the PIMs, polypharmacy, and hyper-polypharmacy use among older adults attending memory clinics, with dementia or CI. The secondary objective of this study will be to compile a list of commonly implicated PIMs and to investigate factors that may be associated with using PIMs in this population. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Cochrane library, EBSCOhost CINAHL, and Ovid International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA) will be systematically searched by a researcher (R.S.) with the help of a librarian (C.C.). All databases will be searched from inception to May 05, 2023. Cross-sectional, cohort, randomized clinical trials, quasi-experimental, and case-control studies will be included if they assess PIM's use among older adults with dementia and/or CI. A step-by-step guide by Pai et al. [Natl Med J India. 2004;17(2):86-95] will be followed when conducting this systematic review (S.R.). The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist will be followed for reporting this SR. Conclusion: The findings from this SR/MA will identify the pooled prevalence of PIMs, providing a more precise estimate of the true prevalence of the PIMs, polypharmacy, hyper-polypharmacy in older adults with dementia or CI who are attending memory clinics at primary, secondary, or tertiary healthcare settings by considering the results of multiple studies.
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 | 0.058 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.004 |
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".