Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31777082›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2020

Impact of the pharmacist-led intervention on the control of medical cardiovascular risk factors for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in general practice: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Abdullah A Alshehri, Zahraa Jalal, Ejaz Cheema, M Sayeed Haque, Duncan Jenkins, Asma Yahyouche

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Risk factors associated with cardiovascular hospital admissions and all-cause mortality in cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Abdullah A AlshehriSchool of Pharmacy, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4785-4551
Zahraa JalalSchool of Pharmacy, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6126-3379
Ejaz CheemaSchool of Pharmacy, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8538-7392
M Sayeed HaqueInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Duncan JenkinsMorph Consultancy Ltd, Worcester, UK.
Asma YahyoucheSchool of Pharmacy, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3348-6399
University of Birmingham · GB21c Consultancy (United Kingdom) · GBTaif University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of general practice-based pharmacist interventions in reducing the medical risk factors for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events.

methodsA systemic search was undertaken in 8 databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBAS, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus, SCOPUS and Science Citation Index, with no start date up to 27 March 2019. Randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of pharmacist-led interventions delivered in the general practice in reducing the medical risk factors of cardiovascular events were included in the review. The risk of bias in the studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

resultsA total of 1604 studies were identified, with 21 randomised controlled trials (8933 patients) meeting the inclusion criteria. Fourteen studies were conducted in patients with diabetes, 7 in hypertension, 2 involving dyslipidaemia, and 2 with hypertension and diabetes together. The most frequently used interventions were medication review and medication management. The quality of the included studies was variable. Patients receiving pharmacist-led interventions were associated with a statistically significant reduction in their systolic blood pressure (-9.33 mmHg [95% Confidence Interval (CI) -13.36 to -5.30]), haemoglobin A1C (-0.76% [95% CI -1.15 to -0.37]) and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (-15.19 mg/dL [95% CI -24.05 to -6.33]). Moreover, practice-based pharmacists' interventions were also reported to have a positive impact on patient adherence to medications.

conclusionThe findings of this review suggest that pharmacist-led interventions in general practice can significantly reduce the medical risk factors of cardiovascular disease events. These findings support the involvement of pharmacists as healthcare providers in managing patients with hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidaemia.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesGeneral PracticeHeart Disease Risk FactorsHumansPharmacistsPrimary PreventionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk Factorscardiovascular diseasegeneral practicepharmacist

Identifiers

PMID31777082
PMCPMC6983518
OpenAlexW2990966712

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.