Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22388601›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2012

Handling drug-related problems in rehabilitation patients: a randomized study.

Karin Willoch, Hege Salvesen Blix, Anne Marit Pedersen-Bjergaard, Anne Kathrine Eek, Aasmund Reikvam

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Reducing medication errors for adults in hospital settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Analysis of clinical pharmacists' interventions in a rehabilitation setting.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Karin WillochLovisenberg Diakonale Hospital Pharmacy, Lovisenberggate 17, 0440, Oslo, Norway. karin.willoch@apotek.no
Hege Salvesen Blix
Anne Marit Pedersen-Bjergaard
Anne Kathrine Eek
Aasmund Reikvam
Lovisenberg Diakonale Sykehus · NOLovisenberg Diakonale Høgskole · NOUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDrug-related problems (DRPs) have been found to be associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and health costs.

objectiveTo investigate whether the inclusion of pharmacists in a rehabilitation team influences the handling of DRPs in the ward and whether an intervention in hospital affects drug use after discharge.

settingThe rehabilitation ward of a general hospital in Oslo, Norway.

methodsPatients were randomized into an intervention group (IG) or a usual care group (CG). The IG patients were followed prospectively by a pharmacist, who reviewed the patients' drug therapies using information from their medical records and patient interviews. The pharmacist identified DRPs and suggested solutions during multidisciplinary team meetings. The IG patients received targeted drug counselling from the pharmacist before discharge. The drug therapy in the CG, for the period from study randomization to discharge, was assessed retrospectively by the pharmacist, who identified DRPs and recorded how they were acted upon. Three months after discharge, pharmacists who were blinded to the patient randomization, visited the patients at home and interviewed them about their medication.

main outcome measuresTypes and frequencies of DRPs in the IG and CG were compared at hospital admission, at discharge, and 3 months after discharge.

resultsOf the 77 patients included, 40 belonged to the IG and 37 to the CG. Patient characteristics (IG vs CG) were as follows: age 73.5 versus 76.8 years; female 58 versus 68%; mean number of drugs at admission 8.3 versus 7.8; and mean number of drugs at discharge 8.5 versus 7.7. At admission, 4.4 DRPs per patient were recorded in the IG and 4.2 in the CG. Significantly more DRPs were acted upon and resolved in the IG; at discharge, the IG had 1.2 DRPs per patient and the CG had 4.0 (P < 0.01). At the home visit, a significant difference between the groups was found: 1.63 versus 2.62 DRPs (P = 0.02) for the IG and the CG, respectively.

conclusionInvolvement of a pharmacist in drug-therapy management, including participation in multidisciplinary team discussions, markedly improved the identification and resolution of DRPs during a hospital stay. The benefit persisted after discharge.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overChi-Square DistributionDrug InteractionsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleHospitals, GeneralHouse CallsHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationMaleMedication AdherenceMedication ErrorsMedication ReconciliationMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID22388601
OpenAlexW2012239478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.