Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37991663›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2024

Scope, content and quality of clinical pharmacy practice guidelines: a systematic review.

Vibhu Paudyal, Betul Okuyan, Martin Charles Henman, Derek Stewart, Daniela Fialová, Ankie Hazen, Monika Lutters, Anna Oleárová, Anita E Weidmann, Francesca Wirth and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A Qualitative Study to Explore Global Trends in Clinical Pharmacy Practice.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

12 authors.

Vibhu PaudyalSchool of Pharmacy, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, Sir Robert Aitken Institute for Medical Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK. v.paudyal@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4173-6490
Betul OkuyanDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Marmara University, Istanbul, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4023-2565
Martin Charles HenmanTrinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Derek StewartCollege of Pharmacy, QU Health, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7360-8592
Daniela FialováDepartment of Social and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy in Hradec Králové, Charles University, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic.
Ankie HazenJulius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Monika LuttersKantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland.
Anna OleárováDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Bratislava University Hospital, Bratislava, Slovakia.
Anita E WeidmannDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Innsbruck University, Innsbruck, Austria.
Francesca WirthDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Malta, Msida, Malta.
Cathal A CadoganSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Zachariah NazarCollege of Pharmacy, QU Health, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4104-4221

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGuidelines for pharmacy practitioners regarding various clinical pharmacy activities have been published in a number of countries. There is a need to review the guidelines and identify the scope of activities covered as a prelude to developing internationally acceptable common guidelines.

aimTo review the scope of clinical pharmacy guidelines and assess the extent to which these guidelines conform to quality standards as per the AGREE II instrument.

methodMedline, Embase, Guideline Central, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Google (for grey literature) were searched for the period 2010 to January 2023. Guidelines which focused on any health care setting and any clinical pharmacy activity were included. Data were extracted and quality assessed independently by two reviewers using the English version of the AGREE II instrument.

resultsThirty-eight guidelines were included, mostly originating from Australia (n = 10), Ireland (n = 8), UK (n = 7) and USA (n = 5). Areas covered included medication reconciliation, medicines optimisation, medication management and transition of care. As per the AGREE II assessment, the highest score was obtained for the scope and purpose domain and the lowest score for rigour of development, mainly due to non-consideration of literature/evidence to inform guideline development.

conclusionClinical pharmacy guidelines development processes need to focus on all quality domains and should take a systematic approach to guideline development. Guidelines need to further emphasise person-centred care and clinical communication. There is a scope to harmonise the guidelines internationally considering the diverse practices, standards and legislations across different geographies.

Indexed as

CommunicationPharmacyAustraliaHumansIrelandClinical pharmacyMedication reviewMedicines optimisationPractice guidelines

Identifiers

PMID37991663
PMCPMC10830799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.