Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35277404›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Study protocol for the evaluation of pharmacist-participated medication reconciliation at county hospitals in China: a multicentre, open-label, assessor-blinded, non-randomised, controlled study.

Aichen Yu, Guilin Wei, Fanghui Chen, Zining Wang, Mengyuan Fu, Guoying Wang, Haishaerjiang Wushouer, Xixi Li, Xiaodong Guan, Luwen Shi

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 43% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Aichen YuDepartment of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Guilin WeiDepartment of Pharmacy, The First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Jiangxi, China.
Fanghui ChenDepartment of Pharmacy, The First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Jiangxi, China.
Zining WangDepartment of Pharmacy, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Mengyuan FuDepartment of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Guoying WangDepartment of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Haishaerjiang WushouerDepartment of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Xixi LiInternational Research Center for Medicinal Administration, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Xiaodong GuanDepartment of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, Peking University, Beijing, China guanxiaodong@pku.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-1290-3827
Luwen ShiDepartment of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Peking University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPharmacist-participated medication reconciliation proved an effective strategy to decrease the risk of medication discrepancy-related errors. However, it is still under pilot in China and its effectiveness in the Chinese healthcare system remains unclear. This study aims to conduct a pharmacist-participated medication reconciliation intervention for elderly patients in county hospitals in China and to evaluate its effect. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, prospective, open-label, assessor-blinded, cluster, non-randomised, controlled study for elderly patients. The study will be conducted in seven county hospitals, and the clusters will be hospital wards. In each hospital, two internal medicine wards will be randomly allocated into either intervention group or control group. Patients in the intervention group will receive pharmacist-participated medication reconciliation, and those in the control group will receive standard care. The primary outcome is the incidence of medication discrepancy, and the secondary outcomes are patients' medication adherence, healthcare utilisation and medical costs within 30 days after discharge. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics committee approval of this study was obtained from Peking University Institution Review Board (IRB00001052-21016). We have also obtained ethical approvals from all the participating centres. The findings will be published in scientific and conference presentations. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2100045668.

Indexed as

Medication ReconciliationPharmacistsAgedHospitals, CountyHumansMedication AdherenceMulticenter Studies as TopicNon-Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicProspective Studieseducation & training (see medical education & training)health & safetymedical education & trainingprotocols & guidelinesquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID35277404
PMCPMC8919460
OpenAlexW4221092490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.