Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17761060›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2007

Treatment reviews of older people on polypharmacy in primary care: cluster controlled trial comparing two approaches.

Wilma Denneboom, Maaike G H Dautzenberg, Richard Grol, Peter A G M De Smet

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2007. 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 25 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Effectiveness of shared pharmaceutical care for older patients: RESPECT trial findings.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2010
    Trial
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wilma DenneboomCentre for Quality of Care Research, UMC St Radboud, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. W.Denneboom@kwazo.umcn.nl
Maaike G H Dautzenberg
Richard Grol
Peter A G M De Smet
Radboud University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOlder people are prone to problems related to use of medicines. As they tend to use many different medicines, monitoring pharmacotherapy for older people in primary care is important.

aimTo determine which procedure for treatment reviews (case conferences versus written feedback) results in more medication changes, measured at different moments in time. To determine the costs and savings related to such an intervention. DESIGN OF STUDY: Randomised, controlled trial, randomisation at the level of the community pharmacy.

settingPrimary care; treatment reviews were performed by 28 pharmacists and 77 GPs concerning 738 older people (> or =75 years) on polypharmacy (>five medicines).

methodIn one group, pharmacists and GPs performed case conferences on prescription-related problems; in the other group, pharmacists provided results of a treatment review to GPs as written feedback. Number of medication changes was counted following clinically-relevant recommendations. Costs and savings associated with the intervention at various times were calculated.

resultsIn the case-conference group significantly more medication changes were initiated (42 versus 22, P = 0.02). This difference was also present 6 months after treatment reviews (36 versus 19, P = 0.02). Nine months after treatment reviews, the difference was no longer significant (33 versus 19, P = 0.07). Additional costs in the case-conference group seem to be covered by the slightly greater savings in this group.

conclusionPerforming treatment reviews with case conferences leads to greater uptake of clinically-relevant recommendations. Extra costs seem to be covered by related savings. The effect of the intervention declines over time, so performing treatment reviews for older people should be integrated in the routine collaboration between GPs and pharmacists.

Indexed as

Community Pharmacy ServicesFamily PracticePolypharmacyAgedFemaleHealth Services for the AgedHumansMalePatient CarePatient Care TeamTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID17761060
PMCPMC2151787
OpenAlexW2159739809

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.