Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28095780›Full record

SynthesisBMC family practice2017

Effectiveness of medication review: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Victor Johan Bernard Huiskes, David Marinus Burger, Cornelia Helena Maria van den Ende, Bartholomeus Johannes Fredericus van den Bemt

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC family practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04142645 (Pilot Study of the OptiMEDs Intervention), which is not on this map. Cited by 117 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
117citing papers in PubMed, 10 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.

NCT04142645 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Pilot Study of the OptiMEDs Intervention: a Complex Intervention for Multidisciplinary Medication Review (Including Nurses, Pharmacists, and Physicians) in Nursing Homes, With ICT-support for the Evaluation of the Appropriateness of Prescribing and for Side-effect Monitoring

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity GhentRan2019 to 2020Enrolled148ConditionsMedication Review, Nursing Home Resident, Nursing HomeArmsOptiMEDs
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

117 citing papers in PubMed, 10 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. Pooled it
  9. Atencion primaria · 2018
    Guideline
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

57 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

4 authors.

Victor Johan Bernard HuiskesDepartment of Pharmacy, Sint Maartenskliniek, Hengstdal 3, 6574 NA, Ubbergen, The Netherlands. V.huiskes@maartenskliniek.nl.
David Marinus BurgerDepartment of Pharmacy, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Cornelia Helena Maria van den EndeDepartment of Rheumatology, Sint Maartenskliniek, Hengstdal 3, 6574NA, Ubbergen, The Netherlands.
Bartholomeus Johannes Fredericus van den BemtDepartment of Pharmacy, Sint Maartenskliniek, Hengstdal 3, 6574 NA, Ubbergen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedication review is often recommended to optimize medication use. In clinical practice it is mostly operationalized as an intervention without co-interventions during a short term intervention period. However, most systematic reviews also included co-interventions and prolonged medication optimization interventions. Furthermore, most systematic reviews focused on specific patient groups (e.g. polypharmacy, elderly, hospitalized) and/or on specific outcome measures (e.g. hospital admissions and mortality). Therefore, the objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of medication review as an isolated short-term intervention, irrespective of the patient population and the outcome measures used.

methodsA literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science from their inception through September 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with medication review as isolated short term intervention (<3 months) were included. There were no restrictions with regard to patient characteristics and outcome measures. One reviewer extracted and a second checked data. The risk of bias of studies was evaluated independently by two reviewers. A best evidence synthesis was conducted for every outcome measure used in more than one trial. In case of binary variables a meta-analysis was performed in addition to the best evidence synthesis, to quantify the effect.

resultsThirty-one RCTs were included in this systematic review (55% low risk of bias). A best evidence synthesis was conducted for 22 outcome measures. No effect of medication review was found on clinical outcomes (mortality, hospital admissions/healthcare use, the number of patients falling, physical and cognitive functioning), except a decrease in the number of falls per patient. However, in a sensitivity analysis using a more stringent threshold for risk of bias, the conclusion for the effect on the number of falls changed to inconclusive. Furthermore no effect was found on quality of life and evidence was inconclusive about the effect on economical outcome measures. However, an effect was found on most drug-related problems: medication review resulted in a decrease in the number of drug-related problems, more changes in medication, more drugs with dosage decrease and a greater decrease or smaller increase of the number of drugs.

conclusionsAn isolated medication review during a short term intervention period has an effect on most drug-related outcomes, minimal effect on clinical outcomes and no effect on quality of life. No conclusion can be drawn about the effect on economical outcome measures. Therefore, it should be considered to stop performing cross-sectional medication reviews as standard care.

Indexed as

Drug CostsDrug UtilizationEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansMaleMedication Therapy ManagementPharmaceutical PreparationsPharmaceutical ServicesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeUnited StatesPharmaceutical PreparationsClinical outcomesDrug-related outcomesDrug utilization review[Mesh]Economical outcomesMedication reviewMeta-analysis[Publication Type]Pharmaceutical services[Mesh]Quality of lifeReview[Publication Type]

Identifiers

PMID28095780
PMCPMC5240219

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.