Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27108410›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2016

Impact of a community pharmacist-led medication review on medicines use in patients on polypharmacy--a prospective randomised controlled trial.

Markus Messerli, Eva Blozik, Noortje Vriends, Kurt E Hersberger

3 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 57 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT01739816 nacompletednot on this map

Polymedication Check - Evaluation of the Impact of Community Pharmacy Based Medication Review on Medicines Use and Humanistic Outcomes

TypeinterventionalSponsorKurt HersbergerRan2012 to 2014Enrolled450ConditionsPolypharmacyArmsMedication review
NCT03321058 completednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Polymedikations-Check Und Medikamenten-Organisation im Alltag

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity Hospital, Basel, SwitzerlandRan2017 to 2017Enrolled125ConditionsMedication Therapy Management, Medication AdherenceArmsAssessment
NCT05348538 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Feasibility Study of the Medication Review With Follow up Service for Patients With Polypharmacy in Swiss Community Pharmacies

TypeinterventionalSponsorCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisante), University of Lausanne, SwitzerlandRan2023 to 2024Enrolled162ConditionsChronic DiseaseArmsMedication review with follow up or MaJ? for the acronym in french
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 121 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Markus MesserliPharmaceutical Care Research Group, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. markus.messerli@unibas.ch.
Eva BlozikDivision of General Practice, Department of Medicine, University Medical Centre Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Noortje VriendsDivision of Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry, Department of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Kurt E HersbergerPharmaceutical Care Research Group, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
University of Basel · CHUniversity Medical Center Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2010 the 'Polymedication Check' (PMC), a pharmacist-led medication review, was newly introduced to be delivered independently from the prescriber and reimbursed by the Swiss health insurances. This study aimed at evaluating the impact of this new cognitive service focusing on medicines use and patients' adherence in everyday life.

methodsThis randomised controlled trial was conducted in 54 Swiss community pharmacies. Eligible patients used ≥4 prescribed medicines over >3 months. The intervention group received a PMC at study start (T-0) and after 28 weeks (T-28) while the control group received only a PMC at T-28. Primary outcome measure was change in patients' objective adherence, calculated as Medication Possession Ratio (MPR) and Daily Polypharmacy Possession Ratio (DPPR), using refill data from the pharmacies and patient information of dosing. Subjective adherence was assessed as secondary outcome by self-report questionnaires (at T-0 and T-28) and telephone interviews (at T-2 and T-16), where participants estimated their overall adherence on a scale from 0-100%. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 450 patients were randomly allocated to intervention (N = 218, 48.4%) and control group (N = 232, 51.6%). Dropout rate was fairly low and comparable for both groups (N Int = 37 (17.0%), NCont = 41 (17.7%), p = 0.845). Main addressed drug-related problem (DRP) during PMC at T-0 was insufficient adherence to at least one medicine (N = 69, 26.7%). At T-28, 1020 chronic therapies fulfilled inclusion criteria for MPR calculation, representing 293 of 372 patients (78.8%). Mean MPR and adherence to polypharmacy (DPPR) for both groups were equally high (MPRInt = 88.3, SD = 19.03; MPRCont = 87.5, SD = 20.75 (p = 0.811) and DPPRInt = 88.0, SD = 13.31; DPPRCont = 87.5, SD = 20.75 (p = 0.906), respectively). Mean absolute change of subjective adherence between T-0 and T-2 was +1.03% in the intervention and -0.41% in the control group (p = 0.058). The number of patients reporting a change of their adherence of more than ±5 points on a scale 0-100% between T-0 and T-2 was significantly higher in the intervention group (NImprovement = 30; NWorsening = 14) than in the control group (NImprovement = 20; NWorsening = 24; p = 0.028).

conclusionThrough the PMC pharmacist were able to identify a significant number of DRPs. Participants showed high baseline objective adherence of 87.5%, providing little potential for improvement. Hence, no significant increase of objective adherence was observed. However, regarding changes in subjective adherence of more than ±5% the PMC showed a positive effect.

trial registrationClinical trial registry database, NCT01739816; first entry on November 27, 2012.

Indexed as

Drug MonitoringPharmaciesPolypharmacyAdolescentAdultAgedCounselingDatabases, FactualDrug Utilization ReviewFemaleGeneral PracticeHospitalizationHumansMaleMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedAdherence to medicationCommunity pharmacyDrug-related problemsMedication reviewMedicines usePharmaceutical carePolypharmacy

Identifiers

PMID27108410
PMCPMC4842295
OpenAlexW2338651455

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.