ArticleJournal of global health2024
Evaluation of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation at county hospitals in China: A multicentre, open-label, assessor-blinded, nonrandomised controlled study.
Article in Journal of global health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrated pharmaceutical care model by unit-based clinical pharmacists: Implementation and clinical impact.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Due to a lack of related research, we aimed to determine the effectiveness of a pharmacist-led medication reconciliation intervention in China. Methods: We conducted a multicentre, prospective, open-label, assessor-blinded, cluster, nonrandomised controlled study at six county-level hospitals, with hospital wards serving as the clusters. We included patients discharged from the sampled hospitals who were aged ≥60 years; had ≥1 studied diagnoses; and were prescribed with ≥3 medications at discharge. Patients in the intervention group received a pharmacist-led medication reconciliation intervention and those in the control group received standard care. We assessed the incidence of medication discrepancies at discharge, patients' medication adherence, and health care utilisation within 30 days after discharge. Results: There were 429 patients in the intervention group (mean age = 72.5 years, standard deviation (SD) = 7.0) and 526 patients in the control group (mean age = 73.6 years, SD = 7.1). Of the 1632 medication discrepancies identified at discharge, fewer occurred in the intervention group (1.9 per patient on average) than the control group (2.6 per patient on average).The intervention significantly reduced the incidence of medication discrepancy by 9.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) = -15.6, -3.6, P = 0.002) and improved patients' medication adherence, with an absolute decrease in the mean adherence score of 2.5 (95% CI = -2.8, -2.2, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in readmission rates between the intervention and control groups. Conclusions: Pharmacist-led medication reconciliation at discharge from Chinese county-level hospitals reduced medication discrepancies and improved patients' adherence among patients aged 60 years or above, though no impact on readmission after discharge was observed. Registration: ChiCTR2100045668.
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.