Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40182069›Full record

ArticleJRSM open2025

Structured medication reviews for patients with polypharmacy in primary care: a cross-sectional study in North West London, UK.

Linwei Li, Geva Greenfield, Benedict W J Hayhoe, Derryn Lovett, Vesselin Novov, Azeem Majeed, Paul Aylin, Hadar Zaman, Thomas Woodcock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JRSM open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Linwei LiDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London W12 0BZ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2852-2479
Geva GreenfieldDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London W12 0BZ, UK.
Benedict W J HayhoeDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London W12 0BZ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2645-6191
Derryn LovettDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London W12 0BZ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6338-5919
Vesselin NovovDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London W12 0BZ, UK.
Azeem MajeedDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London W12 0BZ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2357-9858
Paul AylinDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London W12 0BZ, UK.
Hadar ZamanSchool of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
Thomas WoodcockDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London W12 0BZ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4735-4856

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To identify the number and characteristics of patients with polypharmacy receiving structured medication reviews (SMRs) and medication reviews in primary care in 2022, and to evaluate whether the provision of these services is equitable across different demographic and socio-economic groups. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Primary care networks in North West London, UK. Participants: Adults registered with a general practitioner (GP) and regularly prescribed at least five medicines or more. Main outcome measures: Receipt of at least one SMR and any kind of medication review during the study period (2022). Results: Among 515,042 adults regularly prescribed with medication, 167,482 were regularly prescribed at least five medicines, defined as polypharmacy. 53.3% (89,220) of these patients received at least one kind of medication review and 17.2% (11,954) of them received SMRs. Patients who were males, black, more affluent, and frailer, were more likely to receive medication reviews, while those who were males, less affluent, and frailer, were more likely to receive SMRs. Conclusions: Although polypharmacy was common in North West London, only about half of eligible patients received medication reviews, and only 17.2% received SMRs. Different distributions of medication reviews and SMRs by demographic and socio-economic characteristics may indicate inequities in the provision of these services. Policy makers should consider effective ways to incentivise the equitable provision of SMRs.

Indexed as

medical error/patient safetymedical managementpatientsquantitative research

Identifiers

PMID40182069
PMCPMC11963712

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.