ArticleFarmaceuticos comunitarios2025
[Medicines use review service in community pharmacies: an open door to other clinical pharmacy services].
Article in Farmaceuticos comunitarios, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To perform a medicines use review (MUR) service and apply a methodology to tailor the patients to more complex pharmacist-led clinical services. Methods: A MUR consultation for revision with the patient of all medication to ensure the medicines are being taken properly was performed with participants from five community pharmacies. The 'Medication Adherence Universal Questionnaire' (MAUQ) and the 'Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire' (BMQ) were added to the protocol. Medication Regimen Complexity Index (MRCI) was calculated for unintentional non-adherent patients. Then, a referral algorithm for more complex pharmacist-led clinical services - such as medication review, individualized medication preparation, or patient education - was applied to adapt a plan to each participant. Results: From the 189 patients included, 100 (52.9%) were referred to a medication review service because they used at least one high-risk medicine, presented clinically significant complaints and/or used at least 10 medicines. From the remaining, MAUQ showed 46.1% non-adherent and BMQ revealed 26.8% intentionally non-adherent, indicating the need for education/health literacy services. Within the 73.2% unintentionally non-adherent, 46.7% presented MRCI below the median value, benefiting from memory strategies or referral to individualized medication preparation, while 53.3% needed medication review. MUR resolved medicines-use issues for 48 patients and potentially benefited an additional 25. Conclusions: The MUR, combined with the assessment of medication adherence, and the subsequent application of a referral algorithm, identified patients with different needs' profiles, acting as an open door to more complex pharmacist-led services that best serve patients' needs in a community pharmacy.
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.