Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27511835›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2016

Do pharmacist-led medication reviews in hospitals help reduce hospital readmissions? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pierre Renaudin, Laurent Boyer, Marie-Anne Esteve, Pierre Bertault-Peres, Pascal Auquier, Stéphane Honore

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2016. 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. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

6 authors.

Pierre RenaudinService Pharmacie, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Marseille, Hôpital La Timone, Marseille, F-13000, France.
Laurent BoyerEA 3279 - Santé Publique, Maladie Chronique et Qualité de la Vie, Faculté de Médecine Timone, Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, F-13000, France.
Marie-Anne EsteveService Pharmacie, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Marseille, Hôpital La Timone, Marseille, F-13000, France.
Pierre Bertault-PeresService Pharmacie, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Marseille, Hôpital La Timone, Marseille, F-13000, France.
Pascal AuquierEA 3279 - Santé Publique, Maladie Chronique et Qualité de la Vie, Faculté de Médecine Timone, Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, F-13000, France.
Stéphane HonoreService Pharmacie, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Marseille, Hôpital La Timone, Marseille, F-13000, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe aim of this meta-analysis is to examine the impact of in-hospital pharmacist-led medication reviews in paediatric and adult patients.

methodsRelevant studies were identified from the Medline and Cochrane Library databases. Studies were included if they met the following criteria (without any language or date restrictions): design: randomized controlled trial; intervention: in-hospital pharmacist-led medication review (experimental group) vs. usual care (control group); participants: paediatric or adult population. The primary outcome was all-cause readmissions and/or emergency department (ED) visits at different time points. The secondary outcomes were all-cause readmissions, all-cause ED visits, drug-related readmissions, mortality, length of hospital stay, adherence and quality of life. We calculated the relative risk (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each study. We used fixed and/or random effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I

resultsWe systematically reviewed 19 randomized controlled trials (4805 participants). The readmission rates did not differ between the experimental group and the control group (RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.89; 1.05, p = 0.470). The secondary outcomes did not differ between the two groups, except for in drug-related readmissions, which were lower in the experimental group (RR = 0.25, 95% CI 0.14; 0.45, p < 0.001), and all-cause ED visits (RR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.59; 0.85 p = 0.001).

conclusionThe low-quality evidence in this analysis suggests an impact of pharmacist-led medication reviews on drug-related readmissions and all-cause ED visits. Few studies reported on adherence and quality of life. More high-quality randomized clinical trials are needed to assess the impact of pharmacist-led medication reviews on patient-relevant outcomes, including adherence and quality of life.

Indexed as

PharmacistsDrug PrescriptionsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansPatient ReadmissionPharmacy Service, HospitalRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicclinical pharmacymedication reconciliationmedication reviewmeta-analysispharmacistssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27511835
PMCPMC5099542

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.