SynthesisFrontiers in public health2024
Practice Guidelines for the Value Evaluation of Clinical Pharmacy Services (version 2).
Synthesis in Frontiers in public 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.
- Through the lens: photovoice reveals the role of pharmacists in primary care.International journal of clinical 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
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To optimize the construction of pharmaceutical services in medical institutions, advance the development of clinical pharmacy as a discipline, enhance the level of clinical pharmacy services, systematically implement and evaluate clinical pharmacy practices, and improve patient therapeutic outcomes, we have developed the Practice Guidelines for the Value Evaluation of Clinical Pharmacy Services (Version 2). Methods: This guideline was designed following the World Health Organization (WHO) Guideline Development Manual. The Delphi method was employed to identify clinical questions. A comprehensive systematic search was conducted to collect existing evidence on relevant issues, and the systematic reviews, evidence grading, and evidence summaries were subsequently compiled. The guideline employs the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) evidence level system from Australia and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system introduced by WHO in 2004 to classify the quality of evidence. Consensus on the recommendations and evidence levels was achieved through the Delphi method, resulting in the formation of the Practice Guidelines for the Value Evaluation of Clinical Pharmacy Services (Version 2). Results: Through a questionnaire survey of over 100 experts and the Delphi method voting, 23 preliminary indicators for evaluating the value of clinical pharmacy services were identified. The content of these included indicators was searched according to the PICO principle, followed by systematic reviews, meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, and related original research. Each search strategy was reviewed and approved by the guidelines steering committee. Ultimately, three dimensions for evaluating the value of clinical pharmacy were identified, encompassing 15 indicators, resulting in 20 recommendations. Conclusion: This guideline presents a set of metrics to assess the quality and effectiveness of clinical pharmacy services, which is crucial for enhancing and elevating clinical pharmacy services in healthcare institutions. Systematic review registration: http://www.guidelines-registry.org/guide/28502a74-7038-439c-bdee-d355747e2a9d, identifier: PREPARE-2022CN756.
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.