Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38463177›Full record

ArticleCanadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPC

Setting priorities for physical examination in pharmacy education: A Delphi study.

Marie-Laurence Tremblay, Marc-Antoine Guay, Alexandre Lafleur

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPC. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Marie-Laurence TremblayFaculty of Pharmacy, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3631-615X
Marc-Antoine GuayFaculty of Medicine. Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec.
Alexandre LafleurFaculty of Medicine. Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: As the scope of pharmacy practice is expanding, a growing number of pharmacists perform physical examination (PE) to gather additional information to monitor the effectiveness and safety of their patients' therapy. This professional activity calls for the development of comprehensive and valuable PE training. We sought to determine by consensus which PE tests should be given teaching priority in pharmacy education. Methods: Using existing PE literature in pharmacy, we conducted an online Delphi survey from December 2021 to April 2022 with 16 pharmacists who practise in a variety of settings and/or who are considered experts in PE. Results: After 2 Delphi rounds, consensus was reached to either include or exclude 27 PE tests in entry-to-practice programs. One last round allowed prioritizing the agreed-upon PE tests in terms of educational needs. Clinicians agreed that measuring blood pressure is indispensable and should be given teaching priority, followed by pulse rate, weight and blood glucose measurements. Endocrine system and head and neck examinations should be included in pharmacy programs, but their clinical usefulness was considered less important. Discussion: We compared our results with PE literature in other health care disciplines. We found that only a few PE tests truly influence drug therapy management, that some examinations can be quite difficult to perform accurately and that without proper training and opportunities to retrain, skill decay can lead to dangerous misinterpretations. Pharmacy programs should consider focusing on teaching PE tests supported by evidence as having an impact on drug therapy management.

Identifiers

PMID38463177
PMCPMC10924573

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.