Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,100Open textbooks2Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology107Genetics and Genomics95Neuroscience110Cardiovascular Medicine105Immunology90Pharmacology99Molecular Biology100Infectious Diseases102Rare and Inherited Diseases106Clinical Research98Anatomy and Physiology542Drugs and Chemicals546
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Pharmacology›Inappropriate Prescribing
Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Inappropriate Prescribing

Pharmacology · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-10-29 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 4 min read

The practice of administering medications in a manner that poses more risk than benefit, particularly where safer alternatives exist.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (822 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

The practice of administering medications in a manner that poses more risk than benefit, particularly where safer alternatives exist.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Inappropriate Prescribings; Prescribing, Inappropriate; Prescribings, Inappropriate; Inappropriate Prescriptions; Inappropriate Prescription; Prescription, Inappropriate; Prescriptions, Inappropriate; Over Prescribing.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Drug Therapy; Medication Errors
See also
Drug Overdose; Deprescriptions; Medical Overuse

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 5,626 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Inappropriate Prescribing” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 2,317 of them (41.2%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 3,389 records.

Reviews account for 716 records (12.7%) and meta-analyses for 72. Randomized controlled trials number 223 (4.0%) as a share of all records on the topic.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 0 records; 2000-2009: 4 records; 2010-2019: 3,389 records; 2020 onward: 2,317 records0through 199942000-20093,3892010-20192,3172020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 19990
2000-20094
2010-20193,389
2020 onward2,317
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 12.7 percent; Meta-analyses: 1.3 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 4.0 percentReviews12.7% (716)Meta-analyses1.3% (72)Randomized controlled trials4.0% (223)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 5,626 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews71612.7%
Meta-analyses721.3%
Randomized controlled trials2234.0%

Method: PubMed query "Inappropriate Prescribing"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.

Reading the evidence in pharmacology

Drug evidence builds in layers: laboratory pharmacology describes how a compound acts, pharmacokinetic studies describe how the body handles it, and randomized trials test whether it helps and what harms it causes. Post-marketing surveillance and observational studies reveal rarer adverse effects but cannot prove causation. This page is educational and is not a recommendation to start, stop or change any medicine; decisions about treatment belong with a qualified clinician.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 3
O'Mahony D, Cherubini A, Guiteras AR, Denkinger M, Beuscart JB, Onder G, et al.
2023Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
368cc by
PMID 37256475 · DOI · PMC10447584
Prevalence of Use of Potentially Inappropriate Medications Among Older Adults Worldwide: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Tian F, Chen Z, Zeng Y, Feng Q, Chen X
2023Meta-analysis
Design not recorded in structured metadata
129cc by
PMID 37531105 · DOI · PMC10398411
Optimizing pharmacotherapy and deprescribing strategies in older adults living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: EuGMS SIG on pharmacology position paper
van Poelgeest E, Seppala L, Bahat G, Ilhan B, Mair A, van Marum R, et al.
2023Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
26cc by
PMID 37812379 · DOI · PMC10754739
Nonlinear Associations Between Frailty and Medication Burden in Hospitalized Older Adults
Umegaki H, Nakashima H, Mizokami F, Yamada Y, Watanabe K, Fujisawa C, et al.
2026Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
6cc by
PMID 42266173 · DOI · PMC13250668

STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 3 [1]

Research article O'Mahony D, Cherubini A, Guiteras AR, Denkinger M, Beuscart JB, Onder G, et al. · · 2023 · cited 368 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
PurposeSTOPP/START is a physiological systems-based explicit set of criteria that attempts to define the clinically important prescribing problems relating to potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs-STOPP criteria) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs-START criteria).
Closing excerpt
ConclusionA fully revised and updated version of STOPP/START criteria has been validated by a European expert panel using the Delphi consensus process.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (247 words)

PurposeSTOPP/START is a physiological systems-based explicit set of criteria that attempts to define the clinically important prescribing problems relating to potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs-STOPP criteria) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs-START criteria). The previous two versions of STOPP/START criteria were published in 2008 and 2015. The present study describes the revised and updated third version of the criteria.MethodsA detailed system-by-system review of the published literature from April 2014 to March 2022 was undertaken with the aim of including clinically important new explicit PIM and PPO criteria and removing any criteria considered to be no longer correct or outdated. A panel of 11 academic physicians with recognized expertise in geriatric pharmacotherapy from 8 European countries participated in a Delphi panel with the task of validating the draft criteria. The panel was presented with the draft new criteria using the SurveyMonkey® on-line platform in which panelists were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a five-point Likert scale.ResultsTwo hundred and four evidence-based draft criteria (one hundred and forty-five STOPP criteria, fifty-nine START criteria) were presented to panelists for assessment using the Delphi validation method. Over the course of four rounds of Delphi validation, the panel achieved consensus on 133 STOPP criteria and 57 START criteria, i.e., 190 STOPP/START criteria in total representing a 66.7% increase in the number of criteria compared to STOPP/START version 2 published in 2015.ConclusionA fully revised and updated version of STOPP/START criteria has been validated by a European expert panel using the Delphi consensus process.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 37256475 · DOI · PMC10447584

Prevalence of Use of Potentially Inappropriate Medications Among Older Adults Worldwide: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [2]

Meta-analysis Tian F, Chen Z, Zeng Y, Feng Q, Chen X · · 2023 · cited 129 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
ImportanceThe use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) is widespread yet continues to receive little attention in outpatient services.
Closing excerpt
Furthermore, the high prevalence trend in the past 2 decades indicates that the global burden of PIM use continues to be worthy of attention.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (282 words)

ImportanceThe use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) is widespread yet continues to receive little attention in outpatient services.ObjectiveTo estimate the overall prevalence of PIM use in outpatient services.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched to identify relevant studies published from January 1, 1990, to November 21, 2022.Study selectionObservational studies that reported the prevalence of PIM use among older patients in outpatient services were screened.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently selected eligible articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to pool the prevalence estimates.Main outcomes and measuresThe global patterns in the prevalence of PIM use among older patients in outpatient services were estimated, and the temporal trends and regional differences in PIM use were investigated.ResultsA total of 94 articles with 132 prevalence estimates were analyzed, including nearly 371.2 million older participants from 17 countries. Overall, the pooled prevalence of PIM use was 36.7% (95% CI, 33.4%-40.0%). Africa had the highest prevalence of PIM use (47.0%; 95% CI, 34.7%-59.4%), followed by South America (46.9%; 95% CI, 35.1%-58.9%), Asia (37.2%; 95% CI, 32.4%-42.2%), Europe (35.0%; 95% CI, 28.5%-41.8%), North America (29.0%; 95% CI, 22.1%-36.3%), and Oceania (23.6%; 95% CI, 18.8%-28.8%). In addition, the prevalence of PIM use is highest in low-income areas. Use of PIMs among older patients has become increasingly prevalent in the past 2 decades.Conclusions and relevanceThis study of patterns of PIM use by different groups, such as geographic regions and World Bank countries, suggests noticeable geographic environment and economic income differences in the burden of PIMs in outpatient services. Furthermore, the high prevalence trend in the past 2 decades indicates that the global burden of PIM use continues to be worthy of attention.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 37531105 · DOI · PMC10398411

Optimizing pharmacotherapy and deprescribing strategies in older adults living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: EuGMS SIG on pharmacology position paper [3]

Research article van Poelgeest E, Seppala L, Bahat G, Ilhan B, Mair A, van Marum R, et al. · · 2023 · cited 26 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Inappropriate polypharmacy is highly prevalent among older adults and presents a significant healthcare concern.
Closing excerpt
By doing so, we can work towards achieving optimal medication use and enhancing the well-being of older adults in the generations to come.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (155 words)

Inappropriate polypharmacy is highly prevalent among older adults and presents a significant healthcare concern. Conducting medication reviews and implementing deprescribing strategies in multimorbid older adults with polypharmacy are an inherently complex and challenging task. Recognizing this, the Special Interest Group on Pharmacology of the European Geriatric Medicine Society has compiled evidence on medication review and deprescribing in older adults and has formulated recommendations to enhance appropriate prescribing practices. The current evidence supports the need for a comprehensive and widespread transformation in education, guidelines, research, advocacy, and policy to improve the management of polypharmacy in older individuals. Furthermore, incorporating deprescribing as a routine aspect of care for the ageing population is crucial. We emphasize the importance of involving geriatricians and experts in geriatric pharmacology in driving, and actively participating in this transformative process. By doing so, we can work towards achieving optimal medication use and enhancing the well-being of older adults in the generations to come.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 37812379 · DOI · PMC10754739

Nonlinear Associations Between Frailty and Medication Burden in Hospitalized Older Adults [4]

Research article Umegaki H, Nakashima H, Mizokami F, Yamada Y, Watanabe K, Fujisawa C, et al. · · 2026 · cited 6 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
AimTo examine how medication burden varies across frailty stages in hospitalized older adults, with a focus on potential nonlinear associations: METHODS: We analyzed a multicenter cohort of hospitalized adults aged ≥ 65 years.
Closing excerpt
These stage-dependent patterns suggest that moderate frailty may represent a window for targeted medication review and deprescribing, supporting frailty-stratified approaches to medication management in acute care.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (138 words)

AimTo examine how medication burden varies across frailty stages in hospitalized older adults, with a focus on potential nonlinear associations: METHODS: We analyzed a multicenter cohort of hospitalized adults aged ≥ 65 years. Frailty was assessed using the preadmission Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). Associations between CFS and total medication count, potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) count, and anticholinergic burden (Japanese Anticholinergic Risk Scale) were evaluated using restricted cubic spline models adjusted for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Primary analyses were conducted in participants with complete data (n = 1075).ResultsCFS showed significant associations with all medication-related indicators (all overall p ConclusionsMedication burden is strongly and nonlinearly associated with frailty in hospitalized older adults. These stage-dependent patterns suggest that moderate frailty may represent a window for targeted medication review and deprescribing, supporting frailty-stratified approaches to medication management in acute care.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42266173 · DOI · PMC13250668

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2 [5]
    O'Mahony D, O'Sullivan D, Byrne S, O'Connor MN, Ryan C, Gallagher P · Age Ageing · 2015 · cited 1,581 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Clinical consequences of polypharmacy in elderly [6]
    Maher RL, Hanlon J, Hajjar ER · Expert Opin Drug Saf · 2014 · cited 1,218 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article What is antimicrobial stewardship? [7]
    Dyar OJ, Huttner B, Schouten J, Pulcini C, ESGAP (ESCMID Study Group for Antimicrobial stewardshiP) · Clin Microbiol Infect · 2017 · cited 546 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Patient barriers to and enablers of deprescribing: a systematic review [8]
    Reeve E, To J, Hendrix I, Shakib S, Roberts MS, Wiese MD · Drugs Aging · 2013 · cited 373 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Inappropriate opioid prescription after surgery [9]
    Neuman MD, Bateman BT, Wunsch H · Lancet · 2019 · cited 315 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Application of the STOPP/START criteria: a systematic review of the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in older adults, and evidence of clinical, humanistic and economic impact [10]
    Hill-Taylor B, Sketris I, Hayden J, Byrne S, O'Sullivan D, Christie R · J Clin Pharm Ther · 2013 · cited 247 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. O'Mahony D, Cherubini A, Guiteras AR, Denkinger M, Beuscart JB, Onder G, et al.. STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 3. . 2023. PMID 37256475 · DOI · PMC10447584
  2. Tian F, Chen Z, Zeng Y, Feng Q, Chen X. Prevalence of Use of Potentially Inappropriate Medications Among Older Adults Worldwide: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. . 2023. PMID 37531105 · DOI · PMC10398411
  3. van Poelgeest E, Seppala L, Bahat G, Ilhan B, Mair A, van Marum R, et al.. Optimizing pharmacotherapy and deprescribing strategies in older adults living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: EuGMS SIG on pharmacology position paper. . 2023. PMID 37812379 · DOI · PMC10754739
  4. Umegaki H, Nakashima H, Mizokami F, Yamada Y, Watanabe K, Fujisawa C, et al.. Nonlinear Associations Between Frailty and Medication Burden in Hospitalized Older Adults. . 2026. PMID 42266173 · DOI · PMC13250668
  5. O'Mahony D, O'Sullivan D, Byrne S, O'Connor MN, Ryan C, Gallagher P. STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2. Age Ageing. 2015. PMID 25324330 · DOI · PMC4339726
  6. Maher RL, Hanlon J, Hajjar ER. Clinical consequences of polypharmacy in elderly. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2014. PMID 24073682 · DOI · PMC3864987
  7. Dyar OJ, Huttner B, Schouten J, Pulcini C, ESGAP (ESCMID Study Group for Antimicrobial stewardshiP). What is antimicrobial stewardship?. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017. PMID 28882725 · DOI
  8. Reeve E, To J, Hendrix I, Shakib S, Roberts MS, Wiese MD. Patient barriers to and enablers of deprescribing: a systematic review. Drugs Aging. 2013. PMID 23912674 · DOI
  9. Neuman MD, Bateman BT, Wunsch H. Inappropriate opioid prescription after surgery. Lancet. 2019. PMID 30983590 · DOI · PMC6556783
  10. Hill-Taylor B, Sketris I, Hayden J, Byrne S, O'Sullivan D, Christie R. Application of the STOPP/START criteria: a systematic review of the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in older adults, and evidence of clinical, humanistic and economic impact. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2013. PMID 23550814 · DOI

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-10-29.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • Medication ErrorsPharmacology
  • Medication ReconciliationPharmacology
  • Off-Label UsePharmacology
  • AbsorptionPharmacology
  • Adrenergic AntagonistsPharmacology
  • Alkylating AgentsPharmacology

All 99 articles in Pharmacology →

At a glance

5,626
PubMed records on this heading
41%
published since 2020
716
review articles
223
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-10-29; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • Medication ErrorsPharmacology
  • Medication ReconciliationPharmacology
  • Off-Label UsePharmacology
  • AbsorptionPharmacology
  • Adrenergic AntagonistsPharmacology

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Legal · Support