Trial reportJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2016
Medication Reconciliation in Oncological Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical and economic impact of clinical oncology pharmacy in cancer patients receiving injectable anticancer treatments: a systematic review.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Reducing medication errors for adults in hospital settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Clinical and economic impact of medication reconciliation in cancer patients: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020Pooled it
- Impact of medication reconciliation for improving transitions of care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Quality Use of Medicines (QUM) Programs and Strategies in Saudi Arabia: A Narrative Review.Drug, healthcare and patient safety · 2025Review
- Improving Drug Safety in Pediatric and Young Adult Patients with Hemato-Oncological Diseases: A Prospective Study of Active Pharmacovigilance.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Discussion on the optimization of personalized medication using information systems based on pharmacogenomics: an example using colorectal cancer.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
- Protocol of the optimal study: Optimization of polypharmacy in geriatric oncology - A randomized controlled trial.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- Advances in Transversal Topics Applicable to the Care of Bladder Cancer Patients in the Real-World Setting.Cancers · 2022Review
- Importance of medication reconciliation in cancer patients.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2021Article
- Prioritizing medication safety in care of people with cancer: clinicians' views on main problems and solutions.Journal of global health · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedication reconciliation is considered to be an important strategy for increasing the safety of medication use. However, few studies have been carried out showing the effect of a medication reconciliation program on the incidence of reconciliation errors (REs) in oncological patients treated in the outpatient setting.
objectiveTo measure the effect of a medication reconciliation program on the incidence of reconciliation error that reached the patient (RERP) in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy as outpatients.
methodsA randomized, prospective, controlled study was carried out to identify the proportion of patients with at least 1 RERP. Medication reconciliation (intervention group) was compared with standard practice (control group) in patients starting new chemotherapy and who were receiving at least 1 home medication before the start of chemotherapy. A prespecified analysis of factors capable of influencing the occurrence of RE in oncological patients was also carried out.
resultsA total of 147 patients were included (76 in the intervention group and 71 controls) in this study. There were 3 (4%) patients with RERP (primary endpoint) in the intervention group and 21 (30%) patients in the control group (relative risk [RR] = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.04-0.43; P = 0.0009). The prespecified analysis of the effects of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG), Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and degree of poly-medication upon the number of patients with RE showed the Charlson Comorbidity Index to be unrelated to RE occurrence. However, the risk of RE was greater in patients with ECOG ≥ 2 (RR = 2.18, 95% CI = 1.4-3.4; P = 0.018) and among patients with major poly-medication (RR = 2.49, 95% CI = 1.52-4.09; P <0.001).
conclusionsMedication reconciliation results in a marked decrease in RERP in cancer patients. The factors that may influence RE occurrence in oncological patients have not been fully established, although parameters such as the degree of poly-medication and performance status may play a role. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors declare that they have no affiliations with or financial interests in any company, product, or service described in the manuscript. Study concept and design were contributed by Sierra-Sánchez, Martínez-Bautista, Baena-Cañada, and González-Carrascosa Vega. Martínez-Bautista, García-Martín, Suárez-Carrascosa, and González-Carrascosa Vega collected the data, which was interpreted by Sierra-Sánchez, Martínez-Bautista, Baena-Cañada, and González-Carrascosa Vega. The manuscript was written by Sierra-Sánchez and González-Carrascosa Vega and revised by Sierra-Sánchez, Martínez-Bautista, Baena-Cañada, and González-Carrascosa Vega.
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.