MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408767553 · doi:10.1111/jgs.19437

Prescribing Patterns and Impact of Sedatives in Hospitalized Older Adults: A Secondary Analysis of the <scp>MedSafer</scp> Study

2025· article· en· W4408767553 on OpenAlexafffund
Bennet Desormeau, Allen Huang, James Downar, Peter E. Wu, Émilie Bortolussi‐Courval, Sydney B. Ross, Kiran Battu, Louise Papillon‐Ferland, Finlay A. McAlister, Sarah Makram Elsayed, Marnie Goodwin Wilson, Rodrigo B. Cavalcanti, Emily G. McDonald, Todd C. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalVancouver General HospitalUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of OttawaMcGill UniversityUniversity of TorontoOttawa HospitalUniversity Health NetworkInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Hospice Palliative Care Association
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioOddsLogistic regressionSedativeMedical prescriptionRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectSleep disorderPolypharmacyCohortPediatricsEmergency medicinePhysical therapyInternal medicineAnesthesiaPsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine the impact of sedative prescription patterns in hospitalized older adults on post-discharge adverse drug events (ADEs), falls, and sleep. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of the MedSafer randomized controlled trial (RCT; NCT03272607) which included hospitalized adults ≥ 65 years of age who were taking ≥ 5 medications. We identified patients who completed follow-up at 30 days post-discharge and provided patient-reported outcomes for sleep disturbance (PROMIS SD 4a). We grouped patients based on sedative use as follows: nonusers, continued home use (pre- and post-hospitalization), deprescribed home use, and new use at discharge. Using multivariable logistic regression, we compared the odds of patients having experienced ≥ 1 ADE (not necessarily ascribed to sedatives), a fall, or any adverse event within 30 days post-discharge. We also used ordinal logistic regression and a minimal important difference approach to compare the change in sleep disturbance at 30 days post-discharge. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 3630 patients with a median age of 78. A total of 2810 (77.4%) were categorized as nonusers; 475 (13.1%) continued home use; 293 (8.1%) deprescribed home use; and 52 (1.4%) new users at discharge. Compared to the continued home use group, the deprescribed group was substantially less likely to experience an ADE post-discharge (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.39 [95% CI, 0.16-0.97]). Correspondingly, new users at discharge had substantially higher odds of falls (aOR, 2.51 [95% CI, 1.13-5.61]). Favorable changes in sleep disturbance were more likely among nonusers (aOR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.05-1.58]) and deprescribed users (aOR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.82-1.50]) when compared to continued users. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, patients who had their sedatives deprescribed were 61% less likely than continued users to have a post-discharge ADE, and new sedative use at discharge was associated with appreciable risk of falls. Hospitalization likely represents a window of opportunity to improve care by promoting sedative deprescription and avoiding new starts.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society→Same topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes→French-language works237,207→