ArticleHeliyon2020
Long-term impact of pharmacist intervention in patients with bipolar disorder: extended follow-up to the EMDADER-TAB study.
Article in Heliyon, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the impact of pharmacists in outpatient mental health settings: a systematic review.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical pharmacist-led interventions and their impact on outcomes in patients with bipolar I disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Systematic literature review of the impact of psychiatric pharmacists.The mental health clinician · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPharmaceutical care (PC) through the Dader method (DMet) vs. the usual care process (UCP) significantly reduced psychiatric hospitalizations and emergency service consultations during one year of follow-up of outpatients with bipolar I disorder (BD-I). To date, the effect of long-term PC on the use of health services by BD-I patients once pharmacist intervention has ended is unknown.
objectiveTo determine whether the effect of PC measured by the decrease in psychiatric hospitalizations and emergency service consultations is maintained one year after pharmacist intervention ceases.
methodsThis was a retrospective analysis of patients who had previously participated in a randomized, controlled, prospective, single-center clinical trial to compare PC (intervention group) vs. UCP (control group) in BD-I patients. Data were collected from November 2012 to March 2014. The primary outcome was the use of health services measured by the number of psychiatric hospitalizations and emergency service consultations. Descriptive statistics, Student's t-test, Kaplan-Meier function, and Log-Rank test were used.
resultsThe study included 92 patients: 43 in the intervention group and 49 in the control group. Eleven psychiatric hospitalizations occurred for the intervention group and 19 for the control group. One year after pharmacist intervention ceased, there were no significant differences between the groups in psychiatric hospitalizations (p = 0.261). There were 14 emergency service consultations for the intervention group, and 24 for the control group without significant differences (p = 0.212).
conclusionsPC through the DMet has no long-term effects on psychiatric hospitalizations and emergency department consultations in patients with BD-I following discontinuation of pharmacist intervention; the effect dissipates when the intervention ceases. Future studies should focus efforts on identifying factors associated with PC that explain why the outcomes derived from this intervention are not maintained in the long term.
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.