Mapping Definitions of Deprescribing in Studies Using Routine Data: A Scoping Review

This scoping review aims to map existing definitions of deprescribing and how they are operationalised in studies using routinely collected data, including both observational research and pragmatic trials. Deprescribing is an important intervention to address polypharmacy and reduce the risk of adverse drug events. However, in studies leveraging routine data sources—such as electronic health records (EHRs), pharmacy dispensing data, insurance claims databases, hospital discharge records, and administrative datasets—there is a lack of standardisation in how deprescribing is defined and applied.

Definitions vary widely, from medication discontinuation to dose reduction and therapeutic substitution. The operationalisation of these definitions also differs significantly, using approaches such as medication gaps (e.g., 30–90 day refill gaps), clinical note review, and dispensing data. These inconsistencies may affect the accuracy of identifying deprescribing events and limit the comparability of reported outcomes across studies.

The objectives of this review are:

To identify how deprescribing is defined and operationalised in studies using routine data.

To assess the methods used to validate these definitions.

To explore how deprescribing prevalence and incidence are reported and influenced by the applied definitions.

This review follows the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and adheres to the PRISMA-ScR checklist for reporting. A comprehensive search was conducted across six databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO) from inception to April 25, 2025. Study selection and data extraction are conducted in Covidence by two independent reviewers. Data will be analysed descriptively and presented in tables and figures, grouped by definition type, validation method, and context of deprescribing.

Protocol

The protocol of the study can be found here: Protocol

Progress / Current Stage

We are currently in the screening stage of the review. The progress so far is as follows:

Stage	Status	Number of Studies
Title & Abstract Screening	Completed	>1,000
Full-Text Screening	In Progress	–
Data Extraction	Pending	–
Validation / Analysis	Pending	–