ReviewInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2011
Review of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve seamless care focusing on medication.
Review in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacy-supported interventions at transitions of care: an umbrella review.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2019Pooled it
- Recommendations for wider adoption of clinical pharmacy in Central and Eastern Europe in order to optimise pharmacotherapy and improve patient outcomes.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- The medication discrepancy detection service: A cost-effective multidisciplinary clinical approach.Atencion primaria · 2021Article
- Cost-effectiveness of a transitional pharmaceutical care program for patients discharged from the hospital.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aim of the reviewThis review of the international literature aims to assess the evidence and its methodological quality relating to the cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve seamless care focusing on medication.
methodStudies were identified by searching Medline, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and EconLit up to March 2011 using search terms related to health economics and to seamless care. To be included, economic evaluations had to explore the costs and consequences of an intervention to improve seamless care focusing on medication as compared with usual care. Methodological quality of studies was assessed by considering perspective; design; source of clinical and economic data; cost and consequence measures; allowance for uncertainty; and incremental analysis. Costs were actualized to 2007 values.
resultsEight studies on medication interventions for hospitalized patients in the transition between ambulatory and hospital care were included in the review. A variety of types of medication interventions and target populations have been assessed, but the evidence is limited to one economic evaluation for each particular intervention type and each specific target population. Most studies demonstrated an impact of interventions on compliance and (re)hospitalization rates and costs. The studies did not find an impact on quality of life or symptoms. Economic evaluations suffered from methodological limitations related to the narrow perspective; restriction to health care costs only; exclusion of costs of the intervention; use of intermediate consequence measures; no allowance for uncertainty; and absence of incremental analysis.
conclusionIn light of the small number of economic evaluations and their methodological limitations, it is not possible to recommend a specific intervention to improve seamless care focusing on medication on health economic grounds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.