Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31157072›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2018

Hospital pharmacists working with geriatric patients in Europe: a systematic literature review.

Esther Kiesel, Yvonne Hopf

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice, 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. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  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

2 authors.

Esther KieselDepartment of Pharmacy, University Hospital of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2048-317X
Yvonne HopfDepartment of Pharmacy, University Hospital of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMultimorbidity of geriatric patients often leads to polypharmacy that increases the risk for drug interactions. Geriatric patients are also more sensitive to adverse drug reactions due to physiological changes resulting from ageing. Hence, the use of medicines should be considered thoroughly. This systematic literature review aimed at identifying and presenting available evidence on the effect of pharmaceutical interventions on geriatric patients, their medications or healthcare costs in a clinical setting in Europe.

methodsWe included all studies on research of pharmaceutical interventions on geriatric inpatients (≥65 years) in Europe since 2001. Database searches were conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and AgeInfo. In addition, the following journals were searched manually:

resultsDatabase screening yielded 8058 hits. After deletion of duplicates, screening of title and abstract, 143 full-text articles were analysed and 17 papers were included. Manual searching added four more papers. Included studies were conducted in Belgium, Denmark, England, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and Spain. They demonstrate that pharmaceutical care on wards leads to more appropriate medication use and might reduce outcomes like drug-related readmissions. Intensified pharmaceutical care showed additional effects, even in countries with established pharmaceutical care in hospitals.

conclusionsThis systematic literature review demonstrates that ward-based pharmacists may improve the appropriateness of medications, seamless care and drug safety for geriatric inpatients while being cost effective.

Indexed as

Clinical PharmacyEvidence Based MedicineGeriatric MedicinePharmacotherapy

Identifiers

PMID31157072
PMCPMC6457150

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.