ReviewBritish medical bulletin2014
The economics of medicines optimization: policy developments, remaining challenges and research priorities.
Review in British medical bulletin, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interventions to improve medicines optimisation in frail older patients in secondary and acute care settings: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2022Pooled it
- Association of Focused Medication Review With Optimization of Psychotropic Drug Prescribing: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2018Pooled it
- Clinical and cost-effectiveness of eculizumab withdrawal in atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome: the SETS aHUS multi-centre, open-label, prospective and single-arm study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Article
- Nudging strategies to influence prescribers' behavior toward reducing opioid prescriptions: a systematic scoping review.The Journal of international medical research · 2024Article
- A Systematic Review of Nudge Interventions to Optimize Medication Prescribing.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
- A multi-stakeholder approach to the co-production of the research agenda for medicines optimisation.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Evidence for the outcomes and impact of clinical pharmacy: context of UK hospital pharmacy practice.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis review scopes the evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve suboptimal use of medicines in order to determine the evidence gaps and help inform research priorities. SOURCES OF DATA: Systematic searches of the National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: The majority of the studies evaluated interventions to improve adherence, inappropriate prescribing and prescribing errors. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: Interventions tend to be specific to a particular stage of the pathway and/or to a particular disease and have mostly been evaluated for their effect on intermediate or process outcomes. GROWING POINTS: Medicines optimization offers an opportunity to improve health outcomes and efficiency of healthcare. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: The available evidence is insufficient to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to address suboptimal medicine use in the UK NHS. Decision modelling, evidence synthesis and elicitation have the potential to address the evidence gaps and help prioritize research.
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.