ArticleHealth care financing review1999
Evaluation results from prospective drug utilization review: Medicaid demonstrations.
Article in Health care financing review, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The utility of adding retrospective medication profiling to computerized provider order entry in an ambulatory care population.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIATrial
- Pharmacists' Perceptions on Safety Alerts of the Drug Utilization Review (DUR) in Electronic Health Records in a Tertiary Healthcare Hospital.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Comparing the Medicaid Prospective Drug Utilization Review Program Cost-Savings Methods Used by State Agencies in 2015 and 2016.American health & drug benefits · 2019Article
- Comparing the Medicaid Retrospective Drug Utilization Review Program Cost-Savings Methods Used by State Agencies.American health & drug benefits · 2017Review
- From physician to consumer: the effectiveness of strategies to manage health care utilization.Medical care research and review : MCRR · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 1992 HCFA awarded two cooperative agreements for demonstrations of prospective drug utilization review (PDUR). Iowa tested an on-line prospective drug utilization review (OPDUR) system. Washington tested payments to pharmacists for providing non-dispensing "cognitive services" (CS). In this article the authors report on an evaluation of these demonstrations and on three assessments of retrospective drug utilization review (RDUR) interventions. The evaluation failed to detect effects of either State PDUR demonstration on the frequency of drug problems, utilization of prescription drugs and other health services, and clinical outcomes. However, the State RDUR interventions had immediate effects on prescribing physicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10558015PMC4194626What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.