ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences2023
Significance of pharmacist intervention to oral antithrombotic therapy in the pharmaceutical outpatient clinic of cardiovascular internal medicine: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of pharmacist-led interventions on the appropriateness and clinical outcomes of anticoagulant therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2024Pooled it
- Prolonged Prothrombin Time due to Drug-Drug Interaction of Warfarin after the Change from Bosentan to Macitentan: A Case of Pharmacist Intervention in the Outpatient Clinic.The Kobe journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOptimised antithrombotic therapy requires clinical experience and an understanding of the current guidelines. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate whether pharmacist interviews and interventions with patients taking oral antithrombotic drugs in the pharmaceutical outpatient cardiology clinic had favourable clinical outcomes including decreased bleeding.
methodsThe participants included patients visiting the outpatient clinic of cardiovascular internal medicine at the Kobe University Hospital from January-December 2017, and were taking oral antithrombotic medication. The observation period was from the first visit to the outpatient clinic to October 2021 or death. Patients who received pharmacist intervention more than twice were defined as the pharmacist intervention group. Two control patients per one pharmacist intervention group individual were selected from the non-intervention pool matched for age, gender and antithrombotic medication type.
resultsOf the 895 eligible patients, 132 were in the pharmacist intervention group and 264 were selected for the matched non-intervention group. Bleeding events according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria over type 2 were significantly lower in the pharmacist intervention group compared with the non-intervention group (17.4% versus 28.4%, P = 0.019). There were no significant differences in mortality and heart failure hospitalisation frequency, stroke, or cardiovascular events between the groups. Multivariate analysis identified age (≥ 65 years) and pharmacist intervention as factors associated with bleeding (odds ratio = 2.29 and 0.51, respectively).
conclusionPharmacist intervention in the outpatient clinic of cardiovascular internal medicine was effective in reducing the risk of bleeding in patients undergoing antithrombotic therapy.
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.