Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31209718›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2019

Cost-effectiveness of a clinical medication review in vulnerable older patients at hospital discharge, a randomized controlled trial.

Amber A W A van der Heijden, Martine C de Bruijne, Giel Nijpels, Jacqueline G Hugtenburg

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amber A W A van der HeijdenDepartment of General Practice and the Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center, VUmc Location, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Martine C de BruijneDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center, VUmc Location, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Giel NijpelsDepartment of General Practice and the Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center, VUmc Location, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jacqueline G HugtenburgDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacy and the Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center, VUmc Location, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. JG.Hugtenburg@vumc.nl.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Drug-related problems (DRP) following hospital discharge may cause morbidity, mortality and hospital re-admissions. It is unclear whether a clinical medication review (CMR) and counseling at discharge is a cost-effective method to reduce DRP. Objective To assess the effect of a CMR on health care utilization and to investigate whether CMR is a cost-effective method to reduce DRP in older polypharmacy patients discharged from hospital. Setting 24 community pharmacies in the Netherlands. Method A cluster-randomized controlled trial with an economic evaluation. Community pharmacies were randomized to those providing a CMR, counseling and follow-up at discharge and those providing usual care. Main outcome measures Change in the number of DRP after 1 year of follow-up and costs of health care utilization during follow-up. In 216 patients the use of health care was prospectively assessed. Missing data on effects and costs were imputed using multiple imputation techniques. Bootstrapping techniques were used to estimate the uncertainty around the differences in costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results CMR resulted in a small reduction of DRP. The proportion of patients readmitted to the hospital during 6 months of follow-up was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (46.4 vs. 20.9%; p < 0.05). Health care costs were higher in the intervention group, although not statistically significant. The costs of reducing one DRP by a CMR amounted to €8270. Conclusion A CMR in vulnerable older patients at hospital discharge led to a small reduction in DRP. Because of a significantly higher use of health care and higher number of re-hospitalisations post CMR, the present study data indicate that performing the intervention in this patient population is not cost-effective.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAgedCommunity Pharmacy ServicesDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsDrug Utilization ReviewFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansMaleNetherlandsPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient DischargePatient ReadmissionCost-effectivenessDrug-related problemsHealth care utilizationHospital dischargeMedication reviewThe Netherlands

Identifiers

PMID31209718
PMCPMC6677673
OpenAlexW2952251183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.