SynthesisDrug safety2016
Tools for Assessing Potential Significance of Pharmacist Interventions: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Drug safety, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of educational interventions in improving antimicrobial dispensing by community pharmacists: a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Access to renal function information to improve pharmaceutical care in direct oral anticoagulant users: a cluster randomized trial protocol.BMC primary care · 2026Trial
- Nationwide validation of the CLEO tool to evaluate the relevance of pharmacists' interventions in German hospitals.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Impact of Pharmacist Interventions and Interprofessional Agreement in Critical Care: Analysis Using the Clinical, Economic, and Organizational Tool.The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy · 2026Article
- Impact of Pharmacist Interventions in a Portuguese Hospital: A Study Using the CLEO Multidimensional Tool.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Assessing the Impact of Pharmacist-Led Interventions in an Academic Pain Clinic: Clinical Outcomes and Interprofessional Insights.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Article
- Translation and validation of the CLEO tool in Vietnamese to assess the significance of pharmacist interventions.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Ethical interventions: revisiting the assessment tools for health-system pharmacists.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Improving the impact of pharmacy interventions in hospitals.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
- Evaluating the potential outcomes of pharmacist-led activities in the Australian general practice setting: a prospective observational study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Observational
- Pharmacist Role in Hypertension Management in the Community Setting: Questionnaire Development, Validation, and Application.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Using xPIRT to Record Pharmacy Interventions: An Observational, Cross-Sectional and Retrospective Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A pilot study to identify elderly patients with cognitive impairment for clinical pharmacist polypharmacy review in General Practice.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2021Article
- The CLEO assessment tool for pharmacist interventions.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2021Article
- CLEO: a multidimensional tool to assess clinical, economic and organisational impacts of pharmacists' interventions.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2021Article
- Clinical, economic, and organizational impact of pharmacists' interventions in a cognitive-behavioral unit in France.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2021Article
- Nature and frequency of prescription modifications in community pharmacies: A nationwide study in the Netherlands.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Article
- Voluntarily reported prescribing, monitoring and medication transfer errors in intensive care units in The Netherlands.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2021Article
- Observational
- Usability and sensitivity of the risk of bias assessment tool for randomized controlled trials of pharmacist interventions.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAssessing the significance of pharmacist interventions (PIs) is essential to demonstrate the added value of pharmacists. Methods and tools for assessing the potential significance of PIs are diverse and their properties are questionable.
objectivesWe aimed to systematically review the tools available to assess the potential significance of PIs.
methodsWe conducted a systematic search for English- or French-language publications from 1986 to 2013 in PubMed, PsycINFO, PASCAL, and CINAHL. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers based on inclusion/exclusion criteria and were abstracted for content, structure of tools, and validation process.
resultsOf 873 citations screened, 82 distinct tools were identified from 133 studies. While clinical aspects were often defined quite clearly, terminology regarding humanistic, economic, and process-related aspects of PIs was omitted, incomplete, or ambiguous in most tools. The probabilities of consequences of PIs/drug-related problems were evaluated in 20/82 tools. Few tools simultaneously measured economic, clinical, humanistic, and process-related variables. Structure of the tools varied from an implicit, mono-dimensional tool to an explicit, multi-dimensional algorithm. Validation processes were diverse in terms of quantification and number of raters, rating method, and psychometric parameters. Of 133 identified studies, there was limited evidence of validity (8/133, 6.0%), inter-rater reliability (49/133, 36.8%), and intra-rater reliability (2/133, 1.5%).
conclusionsThe majority of tools focused primarily on assessing clinical aspects and failed to detect comprehensive impacts. The heterogeneity of tools and assessment processes hindered our ability to synthesize the results of evaluations. Limited results for their validity and reliability cast doubt on the credibility of this methodology for justification of the value of PIs. Recommendations for development of tools with optimal theoretical, pragmatic, and psychometric properties are proposed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26650064What 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.