SynthesisScientific reports2024
Remote follow-up by pharmacists for blood pressure control in patients with hypertension: a systematic review and a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- [HEARTS Pharmacy: A framework for integrating pharmacists in hypertension and cardiovascular disease risk management in primary careFarmácia HEARTS: um modelo para a integração de farmacêuticos na gestão dos riscos de hipertensão arterial e doenças cardiovasculares na atenção primária].Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2026Article
- HEARTS Pharmacy: A framework for integrating pharmacists in hypertension and cardiovascular disease risk management in primary care.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2025Article
- Medication non-adherence: reflecting on two decades since WHO adherence report and setting goals for the next twenty years.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hypertension is a major cause of cardiovascular diseases. Several recent studies reported that pharmacists' remote follow-up reduced hypertension patients' blood pressure (BP). This meta-analysis aims to verify whether remote follow-up by pharmacists improves BP levels and reveal the factors that make the intervention effective. The search, conducted using PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library from June to July 2023, targeted articles published between October 1982 and June 2023, using terms including "pharmacist", "hypertension", and "randomized controlled trial (RCT)". The inclusion criteria were: (a) RCTs involving hypertension patients with or without comorbidities, (b) pharmacists using remote communication tools to conduct follow-up encounter during the intervention period, (c) reporting systolic blood pressure (SBP) at baseline and during intervention. SBP was the primary outcome for the meta-analysis. Thirteen studies (3969 participants) were included in this meta-analysis. The mean difference of SBP between intervention group and control group was - 7.35 mmHg (P < 0.0001). Subgroup analyses showed the greater reduction of SBP in the "regularly scheduled follow-up cohort" (- 8.89 mmHg) compared with the "as needed follow-up cohort" (- 3.23 mmHg, P < 0.0001). The results revealed that remote follow-up by pharmacists reduced SBP levels in hypertension patients and scheduled remote follow-up may contribute to the effectiveness.
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.