ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Development and evaluation of the pharmacist intervention evaluation (PIE) system: a modified classification for drug-related problems in Chinese tertiary hospitals.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Identification and intervention of drug-related problems (DRPs) is a cornerstone for pharmaceutical care. An effective classification system of DRPs enables to identify the origin of DRPs and improve performance management of pharmacists. However, a standardized DRPs classification system tailored to the Chinese healthcare environment has not been established. Aim: To establish and validate Pharmacist Intervention Evaluation (PIE) System, which is a modified Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE) DRPs classification system, and further compared the efficacy, acceptability, and feasibility with PCNE system in tertiary hospitals in China. Methods: This study used a multi-phase methodological design comprising (1) development and content refinement of the PIE classification through structured expert consensus and pilot testing, and (2) a prospective, multi-center field evaluation using consecutively captured DRP reports from routine clinical pharmacy practice. A total of 1398 DRP reports were identified, intervened, and recorded by clinical pharmacists according to PCNE and PIE systems, respectively. The classification efficacy, acceptability, and feasibility of the two systems were compared. Multivariate regression analysis was employed to identify factors associated with classification efficacy of PIE system. Results: PIE system, consisting of 6 primary and 27 secondary categories, was constructed and validated through expert consensus and multi-center prospective studies. PIE system achieved a significantly higher classification efficacy than PCNE system (92.06% vs. 73.10%, Conclusion: PIE system, a modified DRPs classification system adapted to Chinese healthcare settings, was successfully established and validated. PIE system provides a valuable tool for DRPs management, source tracing, and pharmacist performance evaluation in China.
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.