ArticlePloS one2024
Pharmacist-led medication reviews: A scoping review of systematic reviews.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and reliability testing of BRANT-MERQS-2A: A quality assessment tool for medication review type 2a reports.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Call for papers: strengthening primary care through integrated clinical pharmacy services-models, outcomes and implementation.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Glaucoma in hospitalized older adults: polypharmacy, multimorbidity, and therapy discontinuation - a REPOSI registry analysis.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Development of a Core Outcome Measurement Set for studies of community pharmacist-led medication reviews in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Implementation of pharmacists' services into the care trajectory of older adults with neurocognitive disorder in multidisciplinary primary care clinics: A mixed-methods study.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- Clinical pharmacology consultations and their implementation in clinical decision making.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Less Is More: Optimized pharmacotherapy with improved coNtinuity of CarE in hospitaLized oLder peOple (LIMONCELLO): study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedication reviews aim to support patients who take medicines, and they are often led by pharmacists. There are different types of medication reviews undertaken in various settings. Previous research undertaken in 2015 found mixed evidence that medication reviews in community settings improve clinical outcomes, but further work needs to be undertaken to establish their impact on patient-orientated and economic outcomes.
aimThis scoping review aims to explore the extent and range of systematic reviews of medication reviews conducted by pharmacists, the nature of the intervention, the evidence for effectiveness, and reported research gaps.
methodSystematic reviews were included irrespective of participants, settings or outcomes and were excluded if pharmacists did not lead the delivery of the included interventions. Data extracted included the design of included studies, population, setting, main results, description of interventions, and future research recommendations.
resultsWe identified twenty-four systematic reviews that reported that medication review interventions were diverse, and their nature was often poorly described. Two high-quality reviews reported that there was evidence of no effect on mortality; of these one reported an improvement in medicines-related problems (all studies reported an increase of identified problems), and another a reduction in hospital readmissions (Risk ratio 0.93 [95% CI 0.89, 0.98]). Other lower-quality reviews reported evidence supporting intervention effectiveness for some clinical outcomes (odds ratio: achieving diabetes control = 3.11 95% prediction intervals (PI), 1.48-6.52, achieving blood pressure target = 2.73, 95% PI, 1.05-7.083.50).
conclusionThere is mixed evidence of effectiveness for medication reviews across settings and patient populations. There is limited data about the implementation of medication reviews, therefore is difficult to ascertain which components of the intervention lead to improved outcomes. As medication reviews are widely implemented in practice, further research should explore the nature of the interventions, linking the components of these to outcomes.
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.