Trial reportAtencion primaria2012
[A review of the medication in polymedicated elderly with vascular risk: a randomised controlled trial].
Trial report in Atencion primaria, 2012. 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 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.
Effects of Interdisciplinary Medication Review in Chronic Complex Patients or Patients With Polypharmacy After Hospital Discharge
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Inappropriate Prescribing in Patients Older than 65 Years in Primary Health Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Pharmacist-participated medication review in different practice settings: Service or intervention? An overview of systematic reviews.PloS one · 2019Article
- Role and impact of pharmacists in Spain: a scoping review.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2018Article
- Medication-related factors associated with health-related quality of life in patients older than 65 years with polypharmacy.PloS one · 2017Article
- [Review of the medication in polymedicated elderly patients].Atencion primaria · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyse the effectiveness of a medication review based on intervention directed at improving the appropriateness of drug treatments according to the established guidelines, as well as blood pressure, serum lipid and blood glucose control in elderly patients on multiple medication, and cardiovascular disease or high risk of cardiovascular disease.
designA randomised controlled trial with blind evaluation.
settingFourteen Primary Health Care centres in Andalusia
participantsA total of 323 patients older than 65 on polypharmacy and cardiovascular disease or high risk of cardiovascular disease.
interventionA pharmacist interviewed the patient, reviewed the appropriateness of the drug treatment, taking in account health record data, proposed modifications and communicated them to the general practitioner or nurse. The control group received usual health care. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of patients with appropriate use of low doses of acetylsalicylic acid, blood pressure, LDL-cholesterol, HbA(1c), and quality of life scores.
resultsA total of 41% of patients (average age 74, 61% women) had cardiovascular disease. Ten months after the intervention (18.3% withdrawals), more patients in the intervention group used low dose acetylsalicylic acid than in the control group (52.3% vs 38.6%; P=.024). There were no differences between groups in intermediate clinic outcomes. Quality of life scores improve in intervention group by 6.1 points (100 points scale), but was not statistically significant (P=.051).
conclusionClinical medication review improves the appropriateness of antiplatelet treatment in the elderly on polypharmacy and with high risk of cardiovascular disease. No improvement in biochemistry measurements was found.
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.