ArticleHealth science reports2024
Collaborative medication reviews in community pharmacies-Drug-related problems and the process of communicating them with physicians: A retrospective validation study.
Article in Health science reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Medication Management Strategies at Hospital Admission: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical and translational science · 2026Pooled it
- Medication review improves pain management and quality of life in chronic pain: a pilot randomized controlled study.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Identifying patient data that should be available in community pharmacies for statutory dispensing and providing clinical pharmacy services: A Delphi study.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- Frequency, type and severity of drug-related problems and pharmacist interventions in Paxlovid® prescribing: a descriptive analysis.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Collaborative medication reviews in community pharmacies-Drug-related problems and the process of communicating them with physicians: A retrospective validation study.Health science reports · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Cooperation between practicing community pharmacists (PPs) and primary care physicians has traditionally been limited, with scarce communication on therapeutic issues. The aim of this study was to assess how PPs communicate in writing with physicians regarding (1) the clinically relevant problems they have identified in patients' medications and (2) recommendations to solve the problems to identify development needs in the communication process. Methods: This retrospective validation study assessed medication reviews conducted by PPs in collaboration with home care nurses, practice nurses, and physicians for 46 older (≥65 years) home care clients in the Municipality of Lohja, Finland. The therapeutic and communicative appropriateness of clinically relevant drug-related problems (DRPs) identified by PPs and reported in writing to physicians was blindly evaluated by (1) an accredited pharmacist (AP) and (2) two physicians specialized in geriatric pharmacotherapy. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted to compare the assessments. Results: The PPs ( Conclusion: The PPs were able identify DRPs quite well, particularly inappropriate medication use, according to current care guidelines and formularies. It was found that improvement was needed in the communication of DRPs in written reports with physicians. Interprofessional learning by working in care teams would be suitable for strengthening patient care-oriented competencies.
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.