SynthesisPloS one2018
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Collaborative Primary-Care Workforce Models: An Integrative Review of Evidence Informing RN Prescriber Integration with Family Physicians and Nurse Practitioners.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of prescribing by dietitians and therapeutic radiographers in England.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- A Sociological Framework for Improving Palliative Pain Care in Low-Resource Nations.Current pain and headache reports · 2025Review
- Prescription rights for psychologists - exploring professionals' perspective in Poland.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluating pharmacist prescribing education programmes: a realist synthesis protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Contested role boundaries and professional title: Implications of the independent review of podiatric surgery in Australia.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2024Article
- Costs, consequences and value for money in non-medical prescribing: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2023Article
- A decade of independent prescribing in the UK: a review of progress.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2022Review
- The development of nurse prescribing in mental health services: Outcomes from five national surveys 2004-2019.Journal of nursing management · 2022Article
- A theoretically informed, mixed-methods study of pharmacists' aspirations and readiness to implement pharmacist prescribing.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2021Article
- Nurses and Pharmaceutical Care: Interprofessional, Evidence-Based Working to Improve Patient Care and Outcomes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Barriers to and facilitators of endorsement for scheduled medicines in podiatry: a qualitative descriptive study.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2021Article
- A comparative case study of prescribing and non-prescribing physiotherapists and podiatrists.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Article
- Perceptions about the implementation of physiotherapist prescribing in Australia: a national survey of Australian physiotherapists.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing (NMP).
designSystematic review. Two reviewers independently completed searches, eligibility assessment and assessment of risk of bias. DATA SOURCES: Pre-defined search terms/combinations were utilised to search electronic databases. In addition, hand searches of reference lists, key journals and grey literature were employed alongside consultation with authors/experts. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR INCLUDED STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating clinical or cost-effectiveness of NMP. Measurements reported on one or more outcome(s) of: pain, function, disability, health, social impact, patient-safety, costs-analysis, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), patient satisfaction, clinician perception of clinical and functional outcomes.
resultsThree RCTs from two countries were included (n = 932 participants) across primary and tertiary care settings. One RCT was assessed as low risk of bias, one as high risk of bias and one as unclear risk of bias. All RCTs evaluated clinical effectiveness with one also evaluating cost-effectiveness. Clinical effectiveness was evaluated using a range of safety and patient-reported outcome measures. Participants demonstrated significant improvement in outcomes when receiving NMP compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in all RCTs. An associated cost analysis showed NMP to be more expensive than TAU (regression coefficient p = 0.0000), however experimental groups generated increased QALYs compared to TAU.
conclusionLimited evidence with overall unclear risk of bias exists evaluating clinical and cost-effectiveness of NMP across all professions and clinical settings. GRADE assessment revealed moderate quality evidence. Evidence suggests that NMP is safe and can provide beneficial clinical outcomes. Benefits to the health economy remain unclear, with the cost-effectiveness of NMP assessed by a single pilot RCT of low risk of bias. Adequately powered low risk of bias RCTs evaluating clinical and cost effectiveness are required to evaluate NMP across clinical specialities, professions and settings. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42015017212).
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.