ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2017
Improving Clinical Decision Support in Pharmacy: Toward the Perfect DUR Alert.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Navigating uncertainty matters: Evaluating large language models for drug-drug interaction identification.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Article
- A primer on clinical programs in managed care pharmacy.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Review
- Observational
- Payment models and the sustainability of community pharmacy practice: a qualitative interview study with community pharmacists.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2025Article
- Pharmacometrics: A New Era of Pharmacotherapy and Drug Development in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.Advances in pharmacological and pharmaceutical sciences · 2023Review
- Brief intervention medication therapy management: Establishment of an opioid misuse intervention model delivered in a community pharmacy.American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists · 2021Article
- Comparison of Clinical Importance of Drug Interactions Identified by Hospital Pharmacists and a Local Clinical Decision Support System.The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy · 2021Article
- Differential Prescribing of Antimuscarinic Agents in Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment.Drugs & aging · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The cornerstone of every health care profession is decision making. Historically, the decisions made by pharmacists have focused on ensuring the accuracy and physical integrity of the pharmaceutical product delivered to the patient in strict compliance with the prescriber's order. As the role of the pharmacist evolved over the past half century, the focus of decision making progressively shifted from a product-centric orientation to optimizing the interaction that occurs between the pharmaceutical product and the patient. Toward that end, prospective drug utilization review (pro-DUR) represents, perhaps, the quintessential expression of the pharmacist's contemporary clinical role. Fueled by evolving practice standards, innovations in information technology, and legal mandates such as The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, computer-assisted pro-DUR systems have become a ubiquitous component of pharmacy practice. While these data-driven clinical decision support systems have clearly demonstrated their ability to improve the quality and safety of medication delivery and use, they have yet to fully achieve their promised potential. Doing so will require recognition of continuing shortcomings and a shared commitment by all stakeholders to develop and adhere to best practice guidelines that will better ensure that alerts received by practitioners are valid, interpretable, clinically significant, and actionable. DISCLOSURES: The authors received no funding for this article. Rupp discloses consultancy fees from Surescripts unrelated to this manuscript. Both authors contributed equally to concept, analysis, and manuscript preparation.
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.