Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34753511›Full record

SynthesisBMC medicine2021

Development of a model of medication review for use in clinical practice: Bristol medication review model.

D McCahon, R E Denholm, A L Huntley, S Dawson, P Duncan, R A Payne

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Patients' experiences of a patient-centred polypharmacy medication review intervention: a mixed-methods study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Trial
  2. Exploring the implementation and integration of structured medication reviews in primary care: a qualitative evaluation using normalisation process theory.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Association of strong opioids and antibiotics prescribing with GP burnout: a retrospective cross-sectional study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Article
  9. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

D McCahonCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
R E DenholmCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
A L HuntleyCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
S DawsonCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
P DuncanCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
R A PayneCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. r.payne@bristol.ac.uk.
University of Bristol · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedication review is a core aspect of medicine optimisation, yet existing models of review vary substantially in structure and content and are not necessarily easy to implement in clinical practice. This study aimed to use evidence from the existing literature to identify key medication review components and use this to inform the design of an improved review model.

methodsA systematic review was conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42018109788) to identify randomised control trials of stand-alone medication review in adults (18+ years). The review updated that by Huiskes et al. (BMC Fam Pract. 18:5, 2017), using the same search strategy implemented in MEDLINE and Embase. Studies were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Key review components were identified, alongside relevant clinical and health service outcomes. A working group (patients, doctors and pharmacists) developed the model through an iterative consensus process (appraisal of documents plus group discussions), working from the systematic review findings, brief evidence summaries for core review components and examples of previous models, to agree on the main purpose of the review model, overarching model structure, review components and supporting material.

resultsWe identified 28 unique studies, with moderate bias overall. Consistent medication review components included reconciliation (26 studies), safety assessment (22), suboptimal treatment (19), patient knowledge/preferences (18), adherence (14), over-the-counter therapy (13) and drug monitoring (10). There was limited evidence from studies for improvement in key clinical outcomes. The review structure was underpinned by patient values and preferences, with parallel information gathering and evaluation stages, feeding into the final decision-making and implementation. Most key components identified in the literature were included. The final model was considered to benefit from a patient-centred, holistic approach, which captured both patient-orientated and medication-focused problems, and aligned with traditional consultation methods thus facilitating implementation in practice.

conclusionsThe Bristol Medication Review Model provides a framework for standardised delivery of structured reviews. The model has the potential for use by all healthcare professionals with relevant clinical experience and is designed to offer flexibility of implementation not limited to a particular healthcare setting.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelPharmacistsHumansMedication reviewMedicine optimisationPrescribing

Identifiers

PMID34753511
PMCPMC8579564
OpenAlexW3212411142

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.