ArticlePloS one2022
Development, validation and evaluation of an online medication review tool (MedReview).
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of a Clinical Decision Support System on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Performing Medication Reviews in Community Pharmacies: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Potential Drug-Related Problems in Pediatric Patients-Describing the Use of a Clinical Decision Support System at Pharmacies in Sweden.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop, validate and evaluate a computerized clinical decision support system (MedReview) that aids medication reviewers with pharmacological decision-making.
methodsThis study included three phases; the development phase included computerizing a consolidated medication review algorithm (MedReview), followed by validation and evaluation of MedReview and responding to a web-based survey designed using patient scenarios. Participants had to be 'fully registered' with the Malaysian Pharmacy Board and work full-time at a community pharmacy.
resultsMedReview was developed as a web app. It was validated among 100 community pharmacists from May-July 2021 using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). There was acceptable content validity and fair inter-rater agreement, and good convergent and discriminant validity. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in five domains to determine the attitude of pharmacists about using MedReview: perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, intention to use, trust, and personal initiatives and characteristics; the total variance explained by five factors was 76.36%. The survey questionnaire had a high overall reliability value of 0.96. Evaluation of MedReview was based on mean scores of survey items. Of all items included in the survey, the highest mean score (out of 7) was achieved for 'I could use MedReview if it is meaningful/relevant to my daily tasks' (5.78 ± 1.10), followed by 'I could use MedReview if I feel confident that the data returned by MedReview is reliable' (5.77 ± 1.21), and 'I could use MedReview if it protects the privacy of its users' (5.73 ± 1.20).
conclusionCommunity pharmacists generally had a positive attitude towards MedReview. They found that MedReview is trustworthy and they had the intention to use it when conducting medication reviews. The adaptation of the TAM in the survey instrument was reliable and internally valid.
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.