Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29322274›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2018

Evidence of clinical and economic impact of pharmacist interventions related to antimicrobials in the hospital setting.

L Leache, I Aquerreta, A Aldaz, A Idoate, A Ortega

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. In-Hospital Macro-, Meso-, and Micro-Drivers and Interventions for Antibiotic Use and Resistance: A Rapid Evidence Synthesis of Data from Canada and Other OECD Countries.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2022
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
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

5 authors.

L LeachePharmacy Services, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Avenida Pío XII 36, 31008, Pamplona, Spain. lleache@unav.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2272-7086
I AquerretaPharmacy Services, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Avenida Pío XII 36, 31008, Pamplona, Spain.
A AldazPharmacy Services, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Avenida Pío XII 36, 31008, Pamplona, Spain.
A IdoatePharmacy Services, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Avenida Pío XII 36, 31008, Pamplona, Spain.
A OrtegaPharmacy Services, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Avenida Pío XII 36, 31008, Pamplona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this paper was to review the literature regarding the clinical and economic impact of pharmacist interventions (PIs) related to antimicrobials in the hospital setting. A PubMed literature search from January 2003 to March 2016 was conducted using the terms pharmacist* or clinical pharmacist* combined with antimicrobial* or antibiotic* or anti-infective*. Comparative studies that assessed the clinical and/or economic impact of PIs on antimicrobials in the hospital setting were reviewed. Outcomes were classified as: treatment-related outcomes (TROs), clinical outcomes (COs), cost and microbiological outcomes (MOs). Acceptance of pharmacist recommendations by physicians was collected. PIs were grouped into patient-specific recommendations (PSRs), policy, and education. Studies' risk of bias was analyzed using Cochrane's tool. Twenty-three studies were evaluated. All of them had high risk of bias. The design in most cases was uncontrolled before and after. PSRs were included in every study; five also included policy and four education. Significant impact of PI was found in 14 of the 18 studies (77.8%) that evaluated costs, 15 of the 20 studies (75.0%) that assessed TROs, 12 of the 22 studies (54.5%) that analyzed COs, and one of the two studies (50.0%) that evaluated MOs. None of the studies found significant negative impact of PIs. It could not be concluded that adding other strategies to PSRs would improve results. Acceptance of recommendations varied from 70 to 97.5%. Pharmacists improve TROs and COs, and decrease costs. Additional research with a lower risk of bias is unlikely to change this conclusion. Future research should focus on identifying the most efficient interventions.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsHospitalsModels, TheoreticalPharmacistsProfessional RoleCost-Benefit AnalysisHealth Care CostsHospitalizationHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePublic Health SurveillanceAnti-Infective Agents

Identifiers

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.