Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32319017›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2020

A scoping review of polypharmacy interventions in patients with stroke, heart disease and diabetes.

Matthew V Lum, Martin Y S Cheung, Devin R Harris, Brodie M Sakakibara

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew V LumSouthern Medical Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia Okanagan, 1088 Discovery Road, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada.
Martin Y S CheungSouthern Medical Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia Okanagan, 1088 Discovery Road, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada.
Devin R HarrisDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 920 W 10th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada.
Brodie M SakakibaraSouthern Medical Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia Okanagan, 1088 Discovery Road, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada. brodie.sakakibara@ubc.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6400-0139
University of British Columbia · CAInterior Health · CAUniversity of British Columbia Hospital · CA

Funding

Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Scholar Award
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Patients with cardiometabolic disease, specifically, stroke, heart disease and diabetes have a high prevalence of polypharmacy. Interventions to better manage or reduce polypharmacy in these populations may help improve patient outcomes. However, there is a paucity of data in this area, which needs to be investigated. Aim of the review The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and synthesize the available evidence pertaining to polypharmacy interventions in patients with cardiometabolic disease(s) and to determine what outcomes measures are assessed in these studies. Methods We followed an evidence-based scoping review guiding framework to address our study objectives. Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL) were searched for all relevant studies up to May 2019. The Cochrane Library was also searched; studies included in relevant reviews were screened for inclusion. Reference lists of all included papers were also manually reviewed to identify additional articles. Polypharmacy interventions and measures used to assess efficacy were qualitatively described. Results Overall, six studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of interventions were clinical pharmacist interventions reporting on a variety of outcomes including surrogate markers, quality of life and patient satisfaction, drug-related problems, and healthcare utilization and costs. The findings from the included studies generally indicated positive effects but had high risk of bias. Conclusions Existing polypharmacy interventions have some efficacy at improving a variety of patient and healthcare system outcomes. Increased frequency and duration of follow-up with patients led to significant improvements in quality of life, disease control and cost-savings in outpatient and in-patient settings. However, our analysis of the identified studies suggests low-quality evidence and significant knowledge gaps regarding patients with stroke and cardiometabolic multimorbidity. This signals a need for further high-quality research to both confirm these findings and include these other high-risk patient populations to validate these findings.

Indexed as

PolypharmacyBiomarkersDiabetes MellitusHeart DiseasesHumansMedication Therapy ManagementPatient SatisfactionPharmacistsQuality of LifeStrokeBiomarkersAdverse outcomesDiabetesHeart diseasePolypharmacy interventionsScoping reviewStroke

Identifiers

PMID32319017
OpenAlexW3016518545

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.