Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21428465›Full record

Trial reportDrugs & aging2011

Effects of medication review on drug-related problems in patients using automated drug-dispensing systems: a pragmatic randomized controlled study.

Henk Frans Kwint, Adrianne Faber, Jacobijn Gussekloo, Marcel L Bouvy

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Drugs & aging, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 43 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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.

NCT01739816 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2012, after this paper: background citation

Polymedication Check - Evaluation of the Impact of Community Pharmacy Based Medication Review on Medicines Use and Humanistic Outcomes

TypeinterventionalSponsorKurt HersbergerRan2012 to 2014Enrolled450ConditionsPolypharmacyArmsMedication review
NCT02703727 completednot on this mapstarted 2014, after this paper: background citation

Durchführung Einer Beobachtungsstudie im Rahmen Einer Masterarbeit Zur Identifikation Von Pharmaceutical Care Issues Bei Patienten, Welche Mit Oralen Antikoagulantien Behandelt Werden

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity Hospital, Basel, SwitzerlandRan2014 to 2016Enrolled90ConditionsDrug Therapy ManagementArmsExtended polymedication check
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 78 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. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Henk Frans KwintSIR Institute for Pharmacy Practice and Policy, Leiden, The Netherlands. h.f.kwint@uu.nl
Adrianne Faber
Jacobijn Gussekloo
Marcel L Bouvy
SIR Institute for Pharmacy Practice and Policy · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NLPharmo Institute · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are concerns that automated drug dispensing may increase inappropriate drug use. Automated dispensing could lead to perpetual repeating of drug therapies without the necessary re-evaluation.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to examine the effect of a pharmacist-led medication review on drug-related problems (DRPs) in older patients receiving their drugs via automated dispensing.

methodsThis was a pragmatic randomized controlled study conducted in primary care. Patients were recruited from six Dutch community pharmacies. They were eligible if they lived at home, were aged ≥ 65 years, and used five or more different drugs, of which at least one had to be dispensed via an automated system. Patients were randomly allocated to receive a medication review at the start of the study (intervention group) or after 6 months (waiting-list group). Each patient was independently reviewed by two pharmacist reviewers. The results of these medication reviews were sent to the community pharmacist to be discussed with the patient's general practitioner (GP). The primary outcome measure was the number of DRPs leading to a recommendation for drug change. Secondary outcomes were the total number of drug changes and the number of drug changes related to a recommendation. In order to analyse drug changes, medication records were collected 6 months after the medication review or index date in the waiting-list group. Potential DRPs were classified using the DOCUMENT classification.

resultsThere were no baseline differences between the 63 patients in the intervention group and the 55 patients in the waiting-list group with respect to age, sex, number of drugs per patient and type of drug prescribed. The mean number of DRPs per patient at baseline in the intervention group and waiting list combined was 8.5, with no difference between the groups. At baseline, the mean number of DRPs leading to a recommendation for drug change was 4.5 per patient and did not differ between the two groups. After 6 months, the number of DRPs leading to a recommendation for drug change decreased by 29% in the intervention group versus 5% in the waiting-list group (p < 0.01). Recommendations for cessation of a drug were more frequently accepted than recommendations to add a new drug (82% vs 44%, p = 0.01).

conclusionsThis study shows that patients using automated drug dispensing have a high number of DRPs. Medication review decreases the number of DRPs among these patients. We recommend that all patients with automatic drug dispensing should have a thorough medication review by pharmacists and prescribers.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsAgedAged, 80 and overAgingAutomationFemaleHumansMaleMedication ErrorsMedication Systems, HospitalNetherlandsPharmacistsPharmacyPharmacy Service, HospitalTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID21428465
OpenAlexW92417152

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.