Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25145799›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2014

A review of the methodological challenges in assessing the cost effectiveness of pharmacist interventions.

Rachel A Elliott, Koen Putman, James Davies, Lieven Annemans

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Rapid Access Atrial Fibrillation Clinics in Australia - Modelling Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Evidence for the outcomes and impact of clinical pharmacy: context of UK hospital pharmacy practice.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2018
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
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.

Rachel A ElliottDivision for Social Research in Medicines and Health, The School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, University Park, East Drive, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK, rachel.elliott@nottingham.ac.uk.
Koen Putman
James Davies
Lieven Annemans

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pharmacists' roles are shifting away from medicines supply and the provision of patient education involving acute medications towards consultation-type services for chronic medications. Determining the cost effectiveness of pharmacist interventions has been complicated by methodological challenges. A critique of 31 economic evaluations carried out alongside comparative studies of pharmacist interventions published between 2003 and 2013 (12 from the UK, six from the USA) found a range of disease-specific and cross-therapeutic interventions targeting both patients and prescribers in a range of settings evaluated through a variety of study designs. Only ten were full economic evaluations, five of which were based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The intervention was usually quite well described, but the comparator was not always clearly described, and some interventions are very context specific due to the variability in pharmacist services available in different countries and practice settings. Complex multidirectional aims of most pharmacist interventions have led to many process, intermediate and longer-term outcomes being included in any one study. Quality of resource use and cost data varied. Most incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were generated from process indicators such as errors and adherence, with only four studies reporting cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Very few studies examined the effect of uncertainty, and methods used were not very clear in some cases. The principal finding from our critique is that poor RCT study design or analysis precludes many studies from finding pharmacist interventions effective or cost effective. We conclude with a set of recommendations for future study design.

Indexed as

PharmacistsProfessional RoleCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Design

Identifiers

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.