Observational studyInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2022
Evaluation of medication-related problems in liver transplant recipients with and without an outpatient medication consultation by a clinical pharmacist: a cohort study.
Observational study in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prospective evaluation of medication-related problems and pharmacist interventions in liver transplant recipients.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Pharmaceutical Interventions for Inpatients with Liver Cirrhosis and Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review of Experimental Studies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Unveiling medication errors in liver transplant patients towards enhancing the imperative patient safety.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransplant recipients undergo significant changes in their medication regimen during follow-up and are at an increased risk for medication-related problems (MRPs).
aimThis study aimed to compare the prevalence and types of MRPs and interventions in liver transplant recipients with and without an outpatient medication consultation by a clinical pharmacist as well as the satisfaction with information about medicines and medication adherence.
methodWe performed a single-center, observational cohort study. A retro- and prospective cohort were used and subdivided in a group that did and did not receive a medication consultation. The prevalence and types of MRPs and interventions were identified and categorized. The satisfaction parameters were evaluated using validated questionnaires.
resultsIncluded were 291 patients. In total, 368 MRPs were identified in 197 patients in the non-medication consultation cohort (median 1; range 1-3 per patient) and 248 MRPs in 94 patients in the medication consultation cohort (median 2; range 1-4 per patient). In the medication consultation cohort, significantly fewer MRPs as unnecessary drugs (17.3% versus 58.7%, p < 0.001), suboptimal therapy (2.4% versus 9.5%, p < 0.001), untreated indication (2.8% versus 6.8%, p = 0.040) and underdosed drugs (0.4% versus 6.3%, p < 0.001) were identified. In the non-medication consultation cohort significantly more patients used unnecessary drugs (72.1% versus 39.4%, p < 0.001) compared to the medication consultation cohort. Patients in both cohorts are satisfied with the information about medicines and reported a high medication adherence.
conclusionPatients in the medication consultation cohort had significantly fewer MRPs and used significantly less unnecessary drugs. Including a clinical pharmacist to the post-transplant care has an added value.
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.