Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22607195›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2012

Medication reviews.

Alison Blenkinsopp, Christine Bond, David K Raynor

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05297461 (Impact of Community Pharmacists' Medication Review on Medication Use Related Problems Among Older Adults in Penang), which is not on this map. Cited by 96 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
96citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05297461 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Impact of Community Pharmacists' Medication Review on Medication Use Related Problems Among Older Adults in Penang: A Pilot Randomised Controlled Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorMonash University MalaysiaRan2022 to 2023Enrolled27ConditionsAgingArmsMedication review
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

96 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article

36 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Alison BlenkinsoppSchool of Pharmacy, University of Bradford, UK. a.blenkinsopp@bradford.ac.uk
Christine Bond
David K Raynor

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent years have seen a formalization of medication review by pharmacists in all settings of care. This article describes the different types of medication review provided in primary care in the UK National Health Service (NHS), summarizes the evidence of effectiveness and considers how such reviews might develop in the future. Medication review is, at heart, a diagnostic intervention which aims to identify problems for action by the prescriber, the clinician conducting the review, the patient or all three but can also be regarded as an educational intervention to support patient knowledge and adherence. There is good evidence that medication review improves process outcomes of prescribing including reduced polypharmacy, use of more appropriate medicines formulation and more appropriate choice of medicine. When 'harder' outcome measures have been included, such as hospitalizations or mortality in elderly patients, available evidence indicates that whilst interventions could improve knowledge and adherence they did not reduce mortality or hospital admissions with one study showing an increase in hospital admissions. Robust health economic studies of medication reviews remain rare. However a review of cost-effectiveness analyses of medication reviews found no studies in which the cost of the intervention was greater than the benefit. The value of medication reviews is now generally accepted despite lack of robust research evidence consistently demonstrating cost or clinical effectiveness compared with traditional care. Medication reviews can be more effectively deployed in the future by targeting, multi-professional involvement and paying greater attention to medicines which could be safely stopped.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug Utilization ReviewHumansMedication ErrorsUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID22607195
PMCPMC3477324

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.