老年慢性患者使用抗胆碱能量表的系统评价。

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Rocío Díaz-Acedo, Ángela María Villalba-Moreno, Bernardo Santos-Ramos, Susana Sánchez-Fidalgo
{"title":"老年慢性患者使用抗胆碱能量表的系统评价。","authors":"Rocío Díaz-Acedo, Ángela María Villalba-Moreno, Bernardo Santos-Ramos, Susana Sánchez-Fidalgo","doi":"10.1016/j.sapharm.2024.12.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The rising prevalence of chronic conditions and polypharmacy in the elderly increases the risk of anticholinergic burden, the cumulative effect of multiple anticholinergic drugs. However, no standard exists for assessing anticholinergic burden in these patients, resulting in various anticholinergic scales with differing methodologies and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To identify existing anticholinergic scales that are applicable to elderly chronic patients and to compare their main characteristics, included drugs and anticholinergic potential scores. In addition, we aim to analyse the previous validation of these scales.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science; PROSPERO ID CRD42024505226; October 2023) for studies on anticholinergic scales applicable to elderly patients with chronic conditions. We also examined the validation of these tools in predicting anticholinergic-related adverse outcomes. Inclusion criteria targeted studies on anticholinergic scales for patients aged ≥65 with chronic conditions, excluding those hospitalized or with specific diseases. Quality assessments utilized JBI tools and SQUIRE 2.0 standards.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 1399 references, 18 anticholinergic scales development studies were included. Different scales varied in creation methodology, with some based on literature, review of previous scales or experimental data. The included studies are heterogeneous in terms of design and results of their quality analysis. For the second objective, 29 validation studies were considered, with mixed associations found between anticholinergic scales and health outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current anticholinergic scales and validation studies are diverse and show mixed and controversial results, with evidence often coming from retrospective or low-quality studies; indicating the necessity for future research to focus on developing a clinically applicable tool for accurately assessing anticholinergic burden in the elderly with chronic conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":48126,"journal":{"name":"Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic review on the use of anticholinergic scales in elderly chronic patients.\",\"authors\":\"Rocío Díaz-Acedo, Ángela María Villalba-Moreno, Bernardo Santos-Ramos, Susana Sánchez-Fidalgo\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.sapharm.2024.12.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The rising prevalence of chronic conditions and polypharmacy in the elderly increases the risk of anticholinergic burden, the cumulative effect of multiple anticholinergic drugs. However, no standard exists for assessing anticholinergic burden in these patients, resulting in various anticholinergic scales with differing methodologies and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To identify existing anticholinergic scales that are applicable to elderly chronic patients and to compare their main characteristics, included drugs and anticholinergic potential scores. In addition, we aim to analyse the previous validation of these scales.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science; PROSPERO ID CRD42024505226; October 2023) for studies on anticholinergic scales applicable to elderly patients with chronic conditions. We also examined the validation of these tools in predicting anticholinergic-related adverse outcomes. Inclusion criteria targeted studies on anticholinergic scales for patients aged ≥65 with chronic conditions, excluding those hospitalized or with specific diseases. Quality assessments utilized JBI tools and SQUIRE 2.0 standards.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 1399 references, 18 anticholinergic scales development studies were included. Different scales varied in creation methodology, with some based on literature, review of previous scales or experimental data. The included studies are heterogeneous in terms of design and results of their quality analysis. For the second objective, 29 validation studies were considered, with mixed associations found between anticholinergic scales and health outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current anticholinergic scales and validation studies are diverse and show mixed and controversial results, with evidence often coming from retrospective or low-quality studies; indicating the necessity for future research to focus on developing a clinically applicable tool for accurately assessing anticholinergic burden in the elderly with chronic conditions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48126,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2024.12.004\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2024.12.004","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:老年人慢性疾病和多药的患病率上升,增加了抗胆碱能负担的风险,即多种抗胆碱能药物的累积效应。然而,没有标准来评估这些患者的抗胆碱能负担,导致各种各样的抗胆碱能量表具有不同的方法和结果。目的:寻找现有的适用于老年慢性患者的抗胆碱能量表,并比较其主要特征,包括药物和抗胆碱能电位评分。此外,我们的目的是分析这些量表的先前验证。方法:对MEDLINE、EMBASE和Web of Science进行系统综述;普洛斯彼罗id crd42024505226;(2023年10月),研究适用于老年慢性病患者的抗胆碱能量表。我们还检查了这些工具在预测抗胆碱能相关不良后果方面的有效性。纳入标准针对年龄≥65岁的慢性疾病患者抗胆碱能量表的研究,不包括住院或患有特殊疾病的患者。质量评估使用JBI工具和SQUIRE 2.0标准。结果:从1399篇文献中,纳入18篇抗胆碱能量表开发研究。不同的量表在创作方法上各不相同,有些是基于文献、对以前量表的回顾或实验数据。纳入的研究在设计和质量分析结果方面存在异质性。对于第二个目标,考虑了29项验证研究,发现抗胆碱能量表与健康结果之间存在混合关联。结论:目前的抗胆碱能量表和验证研究多种多样,结果混杂且有争议,证据往往来自回顾性研究或低质量研究;提示未来研究的重点是开发一种临床适用的工具,以准确评估老年人慢性疾病的抗胆碱能负担。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systematic review on the use of anticholinergic scales in elderly chronic patients.

Background: The rising prevalence of chronic conditions and polypharmacy in the elderly increases the risk of anticholinergic burden, the cumulative effect of multiple anticholinergic drugs. However, no standard exists for assessing anticholinergic burden in these patients, resulting in various anticholinergic scales with differing methodologies and outcomes.

Objectives: To identify existing anticholinergic scales that are applicable to elderly chronic patients and to compare their main characteristics, included drugs and anticholinergic potential scores. In addition, we aim to analyse the previous validation of these scales.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science; PROSPERO ID CRD42024505226; October 2023) for studies on anticholinergic scales applicable to elderly patients with chronic conditions. We also examined the validation of these tools in predicting anticholinergic-related adverse outcomes. Inclusion criteria targeted studies on anticholinergic scales for patients aged ≥65 with chronic conditions, excluding those hospitalized or with specific diseases. Quality assessments utilized JBI tools and SQUIRE 2.0 standards.

Results: From 1399 references, 18 anticholinergic scales development studies were included. Different scales varied in creation methodology, with some based on literature, review of previous scales or experimental data. The included studies are heterogeneous in terms of design and results of their quality analysis. For the second objective, 29 validation studies were considered, with mixed associations found between anticholinergic scales and health outcomes.

Conclusions: Current anticholinergic scales and validation studies are diverse and show mixed and controversial results, with evidence often coming from retrospective or low-quality studies; indicating the necessity for future research to focus on developing a clinically applicable tool for accurately assessing anticholinergic burden in the elderly with chronic conditions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy
Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
10.30%
发文量
225
审稿时长
47 days
期刊介绍: Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy (RSAP) is a quarterly publication featuring original scientific reports and comprehensive review articles in the social and administrative pharmaceutical sciences. Topics of interest include outcomes evaluation of products, programs, or services; pharmacoepidemiology; medication adherence; direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medications; disease state management; health systems reform; drug marketing; medication distribution systems such as e-prescribing; web-based pharmaceutical/medical services; drug commerce and re-importation; and health professions workforce issues.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信