ArticlePharmacy (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Designing Effective Protocol-Based Pharmacotherapy Management: Assessment of the Development Processes and Outcomes in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Care Prescription Management.
Article in Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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.
- Usefulness of protocol-based pharmacotherapy management by pharmacists in cancer patients: a retrospective observational study.Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prolonged working hours among physicians in Japan, alongside rising inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) cases, have heightened the need for additional support in IBD care. Protocol-based pharmacotherapy management (PBPM) has emerged as an effective approach that allows pharmacists to assist in prescription management under predefined protocols, potentially reducing physicians' workload. However, the detailed process of formulating PBPMs remains unclear. This study developed effective PBPM protocols by reviewing past provisional prescriptions. Provisional prescriptions made by pharmacists based on verbal instructions from physicians were reviewed to develop new PBPMs at Tsujinaka Hospital, Kashiwanoha. We retrospectively analyzed the PBPM application rate during three months before and after this initiative based on the proportion of prescriptions processed under standard procedure (SP), pharmacist provisional prescribing (PPP), and PBPM (PBPM-P). A total of 1259 prescriptions were retrospectively analyzed in this study. Before the initiative, there were 586 prescriptions (oral/topical, 128; injection, 458); after the initiative, there were 673 prescriptions (oral/topical, 242; injection, 431). The pre-initiative rates for SP, PPP, and PBPM-P were 68.3%, 30.7%, and 1.0%, respectively. Post-initiative, the rates were 48.3%, 26.6%, and 25.1%, respectively. A significant decrease was observed in the proportion of SP and PPP, while PBPM-P showed a significant increase after the initiative. Specifically, the proportion of PBPM-P increased by 24.1 percentage points, reflecting its broader adoption. In terms of safety, the proportion of pharmacists' prescription questions decreased significantly from 3.1% before to 0.3% after the initiative. Additionally, the proportion of prescription changes resulting from these questions decreased significantly, from 1.2% to 0%. The PBPM development process evaluated here could successfully form effective PBPMs, which have the potential to reduce physicians' workload, indicating that the process detailed in this study could be applied to future protocol development.
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.