ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2026
Nationwide validation of the CLEO tool to evaluate the relevance of pharmacists' interventions in German hospitals.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2026. 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.
- Validation of an updated French national tool for reporting pharmacist interventions for all healthcare products.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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe clinical relevance of pharmacists' interventions (PIs) is complex to determine. The CLEO tool is a multidimensional scoring system to assess the relevance of PIs across three dimensions: clinical, economic, and organisational impact.
aimThis study aimed to nationwide validate the CLEO tool by clinical pharmacists in German hospitals using structured and representative clinical cases.
methodThe German CLEO version was adapted to the German hospital setting and supplemented with practical examples. Fifty up-to-date cases from the inpatient setting were developed in a multistage process following the Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation structure. In the first round, each rater was randomly assigned 20 from the pool of 50 clinical cases, ensuring that all cases were evaluated by multiple raters. After a 14-day washout period, the same 20 cases were reassessed by the same raters. In the second round, all raters from the first round were invited again, and a subset who volunteered assessed another 20 cases after intensified training. Inter- and intra-rater reliability were calculated using Krippendorff's α and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). User feedback was collected through a 16-item questionnaire.
resultsA total of 79 pharmacists from 56 hospitals participated in the first round; 27 completed the second round as well. Inter-rater reliability was poor across all three CLEO dimensions (Krippendorff's α < 0.67), both overall and among experienced clinical pharmacists. Intra-rater reliability was good for all dimensions (ICC 0.63-0.74), highest for the clinical dimension (0.74). Most raters (77%) needed less than one minute per case. Overall, the CLEO tool was perceived by users as appropriate, precise, acceptable and feasible (mean score 5.36; 7-point Likert scale; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
conclusionSince clinical pharmacy is still a developing discipline in German hospitals, differences in clinical practice and professional expertise complicate the evaluation of PIs. While intra-rater reliability was good, the validation of the CLEO tool in Germany did not achieve satisfactory inter-rater reliability. The CLEO tool may be useful within institutions with shared standards, but broader application across diverse settings in Germany requires additional training, further research and standardisation of clinical pharmacy services.
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.