Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16456206›Full record

SynthesisQuality & safety in health care2006

Interventions in primary care to reduce medication related adverse events and hospital admissions: systematic review and meta-analysis.

S Royal, L Smeaton, A J Avery, B Hurwitz, A Sheikh

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Quality & safety in health care, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05799430 (Effects of Interdisciplinary Medication Review in Chronic Complex Patients or Patients With Polypharmacy After Hospital Discharge), which is not on this map. Cited by 81 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 15 pooled it
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05799430 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Effects of Interdisciplinary Medication Review in Chronic Complex Patients or Patients With Polypharmacy After Hospital Discharge

TypeinterventionalSponsorFundación Pública Andaluza para la gestión de la Investigación en SevillaRan2023 to 2024Enrolled372ConditionsMedication Review, Polypharmacy, Disease, ChronicArmsMultidisciplinary medication review, Control group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

81 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 227 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pharmacy-based management for depression in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S RoyalDivision of Primary Care, University of Nottingham Medical School, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK.
L Smeaton
A J Avery
B Hurwitz
A Sheikh
University of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify and evaluate studies of interventions in primary care aimed at reducing medication related adverse events that result in morbidity, hospital admission, and/or mortality.

methodsFourteen electronic databases were systematically searched for published and unpublished data. Bibliographies of retrieved papers were searched and experts and first authors contacted in an attempt to locate additional studies. There were no restrictions on language of publication. All interventions applied in primary care settings which aimed to improve patient safety by reducing adverse events resulting from medication overuse or misuse were considered. Randomised controlled trials, controlled trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series studies were eligible for inclusion. Study quality assessment and data extraction were undertaken using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care data collection checklist and template. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model.

results159 studies were initially identified, of which 38 satisfied our inclusion criteria. These were categorised as follows: 17 pharmacist-led interventions (of which 15 reported hospital admissions as an outcome); eight interventions led by other primary healthcare professionals that reported preventable drug related morbidity as an outcome; and 13 complex interventions that included a component of medication review aimed at reducing falls in the elderly (the outcome being falls). Meta-analysis found that pharmacist-led interventions are effective at reducing hospital admissions (OR 0.64 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.96)), but restricting analysis to the randomised controlled trials failed to demonstrate significant benefit (OR 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.05)). Pooling the results of studies in the other categories did not demonstrate any significant effect.

conclusionsThere is relatively weak evidence to indicate that pharmacist-led medication reviews are effective in reducing hospital admissions. There is currently no evidence for the effectiveness of other interventions which aim at reducing admissions or preventable drug related morbidity. More randomised controlled trials of primary care based pharmacist-led interventions are needed to decide whether or not this intervention is effective in reducing hospital admissions.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareSafety ManagementAccidental FallsAgedForecastingHealth PolicyHealth Services ResearchHospitalizationHumansMedication ErrorsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID16456206
PMCPMC2563996
OpenAlexW2049716650

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.