SynthesisScientific reports2025
A systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacy education and practice on prevention and management of noncommunicable diseases in ASEAN countries.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in ASEAN countries. However, consolidated evidence regarding the effectiveness of pharmacy practice interventions in ASEAN is still unclear. This study aimed to explore the scope and impact of pharmacy practice in managing NCDs in ASEAN countries. Systematic searches were conducted in 12 databases (PubMed™, Science Direct™, Scopus™, Springer Link™, Web of Science™, Cochrane Library™, and other databases) for studies published between 2001 and 2021. Of the 171 included studies from seven countries, seven focused on pharmacy education and showed improvements in students' knowledge and skills. Meta-analyses were performed on 47 randomized controlled trials using a random-effects models and risk of bias assessment. Pharmacists' interventions significantly improved fasting blood glucose, HbA1c, lipid parameters, blood pressure, and percent peak expiratory flow rates, compared to usual care. No significant improvements were found in blood pressure (particularly in diabetes subgroups), smoking cessation, or body weight. Positive humanistic outcomes, such as patient satisfaction, knowledge, and quality of life, were reported. While the studies in the meta-analyses were limited to Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Lao PDR, pharmacists' practice interventions in ASEAN countries demonstrated positive impacts on both clinical and humanistic outcomes. Due to a high overall risk of bias, the results should be interpreted with considerable caution. Further large-scale, long-term, and rigorous studies should be undertaken.Systematic review registration: The Prospective Registration of Systematic Review on April 10, 2022, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=316184 .
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.