ArticlePharmacy practice
Protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, cost-benefit analysis and interrupted time-series interventions on pharmacist's prescribing.
Article in Pharmacy practice. 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.
- Pharmacist prescriber in Italy and possible changes to current legislation:Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2025Article
- Pharmacy customers' views towards the potential introduction of pharmacist prescribing: A survey study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Assessment of the Prescribing Pharmacist's Role in Supporting Access to Prescription-Only Medicines-Metadata Analysis in Poland.Healthcare (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
21 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Shortening the process of prescribing via permitting the pharmacist to select the most appropriate pharmaceuticals for each particular patient may provide great opportunities for pharmacists to develop suitable pharmaceutical care plan, monitor and follow up prescribed medications, communicate and consult physicians for more confirmations. Objective: The objective of the current protocol for the systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacists prescribing interventions was to explore, investigate the evidence, assess and compare PICO in patients with medical conditions (population), receiving pharmacist's prescribing care services (interventions) versus non-pharmacist's prescribing (comparators), and identify how it will impact the clinical, humanistic, and economic patient's outcomes (outcomes). Methods: The necessary elements of PRISMA will be strictly followed to report the systematic review. The meta-analysis will be reported in line with the Cochrane guidelines for synthesis of trials and all forms will be based on quality measures as per the validated Cochrane templates. We will present the results of the systematic review and the meta-analysis based on PICO comparison between the included trials. Results: We have identified four models of pharmacist prescribing interventions (independent, dependent [collaborative], supplementary, and emergency prescribing). The results will contain a systematic critical evaluation of the included trials in terms of the sample number of the population (characteristics), the type of interventions and the comparators, and the main outcome measures. Conclusion: This protocol will report the evidence and explore the magnitude of impact of pharmacist prescribing interventions, on clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes. .
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.