ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2023
Effectiveness of Medication Reconciliation in a Chinese Hospital: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Implementing medication reconciliation (MR) was complex and challenging because of the variability in the guidance provided for conducting. The processes of MR adopted in China were different from that recommended by the World Health Organization. A pilot study to inform the design of a future randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of these two workflows was undertaken. Methods: Patients taking at least one home/regular medication for hypertension, diabetes, or coronary heart disease were recruited at admission, and then were randomized using a computer-generated random number in a closed envelope. In the study group, the pharmacist reviewed electronic medical record systems before communication with patients. In the control group, pharmacists communicated with patients at patient's admission. The time investment of pharmacists for MR process, the number of unintended medication discrepancies, and physician acceptance were tested as outcome measures. Results: One hundred and forty adult patients were randomized, of which 66 patients in the intervention received MR within 24 hours, while 58 patients in control received MR at some point during admission. The most common condition in the study group was hypertension (coronary heart disease in the control group). The workflow of the study group can save an average 7 minutes per patient compared with the WHO recommended process [17.5 minutes (IQR 14.00, 28.25) vs 24.5 minutes (IQR17.75, 35.25), Conclusion: The results suggest that changes in outcome measures were in the appropriate direction and that the time limit for implementing MR can be set within 48 hours. A future multi-centre RCT study to determine the effectiveness of MR is feasible and warranted.
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.