ArticleCurrent therapeutic research, clinical and experimental2021
Impact of Pharmaceutical Interventions in Hospitalized Patients: A Comparative Study Between Clinical Pharmacists and an Explicit Criteria-Based Tool.
Article in Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Pharmaceutical Interventions with STOPP/START and PIM-Check in Older Hospitalized Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Drugs & aging · 2022Trial
- Deprescribing: Reducing Harm, Enhancing Care.Rambam Maimonides medical journal · 2026Review
- Economic impact of medication management by clinical pharmacists in a urology department.Central European journal of urology · 2026Article
- The impact of the bedside check of medication appropriateness (BED-CMA) at the hematology ward: a mixed-methods study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Translation and validation of the CLEO tool in Vietnamese to assess the significance of pharmacist interventions.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Severe Neurocognitive Manifestations in Healthy Young Individuals With COVID-19: A Case Series.Clinical medicine insights. Case reports · 2025Article
- Ability to detect potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients: comparative analysis between PIM-Check and STOPP/STARTv2.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt has been well recognized that pharmaceutical interventions (PIs) can prevent patient harm related to prescribing errors. Various tools have been developed to facilitate the detection and the reduction of inappropriate prescriptions and some have shown benefit on clinical outcomes.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical, economical, and organizational impact of interventions generated by clinical pharmacists in hospitalized patients, and to evaluate the performance of an explicit tool, the Potentially Inappropriate Medication Checklist for Patients in Internal Medicine (PIM-Check), in detecting each pharmacist's intervention.
methodsA cohort retrospective study was conducted on hospitalized patients. The impact of PIs based on pharmacists' standard examination was evaluated using the Clinical, Economic, and Organizational (CLEO) tool. The performance of PIM-Check in detecting each intervention was assessed by conducting a retrospective medication review based on available information collected from patients' records. A qualitative analysis was also conducted to identify the types of PIs that PIM-Check failed to detect.
resultsThe study was performed on 162 patients with a median age of 68 years (interquartile range = 46-77 years) and a median hospital stay of 5 days (interquartile range = 4-7 days). The pharmacists generated 1.9 PIs per patient (n = 304) of which 31% were detected by PIM-Check. The acceptance rate of the interventions by physicians was 84% (n = 255). Among the accepted interventions, 53% (n = 136) had a clinical impact graded CL ≥ 2C (moderate or major), whereas the majority of them were not detected by PIM-Check (63%; 86 out of 136). In addition, 46% of accepted interventions (n = 117) were associated with a cost decrease, among which 62% were not detected by PIM-Check (73 out of 117). The qualitative analysis shows that PIM-Check mostly failed to detect PIs related to dose adjustment, overprescribing, and therapy monitoring.
conclusionsAccording to the CLEO tool evaluation of PIs, our results show that clinical pharmacists' interventions are associated with improved clinical outcomes. In comparison with pharmacists' interventions, PIM-Check failed in detecting the majority of interventions associated with a moderate or major impact.
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.