Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23594037›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2014

A systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacist-led fee-for-services medication review.

Ernieda Hatah, Rhiannon Braund, June Tordoff, Stephen B Duffull

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed, 9 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.

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

90 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pharmacist services for non-hospitalised patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

30 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

4 authors.

Ernieda HatahSchool of Pharmacy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand; Faculty of Pharmacy, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Rhiannon Braund
June Tordoff
Stephen B Duffull

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim was to examine the impact of fee-for-service pharmacist-led medication review on patient outcomes and quantify this according to the type of review undertaken, e.g. adherence support and clinical medication review.

methodsRelevant published studies were identified from Medline, Embase and International Pharmaceutical Abstract databases (from inception to February 2011). Study inclusion criteria were fee-for-service medication review, presence of a control group and pre-specified patient outcomes. Outcomes were grouped into primary (changes in biomarkers, hospitalization, and mortality) and secondary outcomes (medication adherence, economic implications and quality of life). Meta-analyses for primary outcomes were conducted using random effects models and secondary outcomes were summarized using descriptive statistics.

resultsOf the 135 relevant articles located, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria for primary outcomes and 32 for secondary outcomes. Significant results favouring pharmacists' intervention were found for blood pressure (OR 3.50, 95% CI 1.58, 7.75, P = 0.002) and low density lipoprotein (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.17, 4.72, P = 0.02). Outcomes on hospitalization (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39, 1.21, P = 0.19) and mortality (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.46, P = 0.34) indicated no differences between the groups. On subgroup analysis, clinical medication review (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26, 0.83, P = 0.01) but not adherence support review (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.59, 1.32, P = 0.54) reduced hospitalization.

conclusionsThe majority of the studies (57.9%) showed improvement in medication adherence. Fee-for-service pharmacist-led medication reviews showed positive benefits on patient outcomes. Interventions that include a clinical review had a significant impact on patient outcomes by attainment of target clinical biomarkers and reduced hospitalization.

Indexed as

Fee-for-Service PlansPharmaceutical ServicesDrug Utilization ReviewHumansOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareOutcome Assessment, Health Carecommunity pharmacy servicesdrug use reviewhospitalizationmedication reviewmedication therapy managementoutcome assessment (health care)

Identifiers

PMID23594037
PMCPMC3895351

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.