Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26001356›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2015

Effectiveness of clinical pharmacy services: an overview of systematic reviews (2000-2010).

Inajara Rotta, Teresa M Salgado, Maria Lara Silva, Cassyano J Correr, Fernando Fernandez-Llimos

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

67 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Reviewing the literature, how systematic is systematic?International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2016
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Professional pharmacy Services' outcomes performance measurement: A narrative review.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2024
    Review

7 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

5 authors.

Inajara RottaPost-Graduate Program of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil.
Teresa M SalgadoResearch Institute for Medicines (iMed.ULisboa), Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.
Maria Lara SilvaPost-Graduate Program of Pharmaceutical Care, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil.
Cassyano J CorrerDepartment of Pharmacy, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil.
Fernando Fernandez-LlimosResearch Institute for Medicines (iMed.ULisboa) and Department of Social Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Lisbon, Avda. Prof. Gama Pinto, 1649-019, Lisbon, Portugal. f-llimos@ff.ulisboa.pt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultiple reviews have evaluated the impact of pharmacist-delivered patient care on health-related outcomes. However, it is unclear which of the pharmacist-delivered interventions in these services are the most effective. Aim of the review To gather the evidence of the impact of clinical pharmacy services on the medication use process or on patient outcomes using an overview of systematic reviews.

methodsPubMed was searched to retrieve systematic reviews published between 2000 and 2010 that assessed the impact of clinical pharmacy services on the medication use process or patient outcomes. Two independent reviewers evaluated the study eligibility and one extracted the description and results of the services. The methodological quality of each review was assessed with the R-AMSTAR tool.

resultsOf the 343 potentially relevant records identified, 49 systematic reviews, comprising a total of 269 randomized controlled trials, met the selection criteria. Clinical pharmacy services that focused on specific medical conditions, such as hypertension or diabetes mellitus, revealed a positive impact of pharmacists' interventions on patient outcomes. For other medical conditions, however, the results were inconclusive (e.g., dyslipidemia or thromboprophylaxis). Interventions that targeted medication adherence and assessed the impact of clinical pharmacy services in prescription appropriateness also produced inconclusive results because of the variability of methods used to assess both medication adherence and medication appropriateness.

conclusionsSystematic reviews that assessed clinical pharmacy services targeting specific conditions were more conclusive given that the intervention was well defined, and the measured outcomes were unequivocal and tangible. Conversely, the results were inconclusive for interventions with a broader target and with monitoring parameters that were unclearly established or inconsistently assessed across studies. These findings emphasize the need to better define clinical pharmacy services and standardize methods that assess the impact of these services on patient health outcomes.

Indexed as

Treatment OutcomeDisease ManagementDrug MonitoringDrug PrescriptionsHealth Impact AssessmentHumansPharmacy Service, HospitalClinical pharmacy servicesPharmaceutical carePharmacistsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID26001356

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.