Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26937196›Full record

ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2016

Effectiveness of the clinical pharmacist in reducing mortality in hospitalized cardiac patients: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Xiao-Bo Zhai, Zhi-Chun Gu, Xiao-Yan Liu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Adopting global tools for the advancement of pharmacy practice and workforce in Saudi Arabia.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Pharmacists in Critical Care.Innovations in pharmacy · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xiao-Bo ZhaiDepartment of Pharmacy, Shanghai East Hospital, Affiliated to Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Zhi-Chun GuDepartment of Pharmacy, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Xiao-Yan LiuDepartment of Pharmacy, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Renji Hospital · CNShanghai East Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPharmacist-led medication review services have been assessed in the meta-analyses in hospital. Of the 135 relevant articles located, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria; however, there was no statistically significant difference found between pharmacists' interventions and usual care for mortality (odds ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval 0.65, 3.46, P=0.34). These analyses may not have found a statistically significant effect because they did not adequately control the wide variation in the delivery of care and patient selection parameters. Additionally, the investigators did not conduct research on the cases of death specifically and did not identify all possible drug-related problems (DRPs) that could cause or contribute to mortality and then convince physicians to correct. So there will be a condition to use a more precise approach to evaluate the effect of clinical pharmacist interventions on the mortality rates of hospitalized cardiac patients.

objectiveTo evaluate the impact of the clinical pharmacist as a direct patient-care team member on the mortality of all patients admitted to the cardiology unit.

methodsA comparative study was conducted in a cardiology unit of a university-affiliated hospital. The clinical pharmacists did not perform any intervention associated with improper use of medications during Phase I (preintervention) and consulted with the physicians to address the DRPs during Phase II (postintervention). The two phases were compared to evaluate the outcome, and propensity score (PS) matching was applied to enhance the comparability. The primary endpoint of the study was the composite of all-cause mortality during Phase I and Phase II.

resultsPharmacists were consulted by the physicians to correct any drug-related issues that they suspected may cause or contribute to a fatal outcome in the cardiology ward. A total of 1,541 interventions were suggested by the clinical pharmacist in the study group; 1,416 (92.0%) of them were accepted by the cardiology team, and violation of incompatibilities had the highest percentage of acceptance by the cardiology team. All-cause mortality was 1.5% during Phase I (preintervention) and was reduced to 0.9% during Phase II (postintervention), and the difference was statistically significant (P=0.0005). After PS matching, all-cause mortality changed from 1.7% during Phase I down to 1.0% during Phase II, and the difference was also statistically significant (P=0.0074).

conclusionDRPs that were suspected to cause or contribute to a possibly fatal outcome were determined by clinical pharmacist service in patients hospitalized in a cardiology ward. Correction of these DRPs by physicians after pharmacist's advice caused a significant decrease in mortality as analyzed by PS matching. The significant reduction in the mortality rate in this patient population observed in this study is "hypothesis generating" for future randomized studies.

Indexed as

cardiology wardclinical pharmacistsdrug-related problemsinterventionpropensity score matching

Identifiers

PMID26937196
PMCPMC4762444
OpenAlexW2283121769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.