ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
Development and Validation of a Clinical Script for Medicine Dispensing.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 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
rationalePharmaceutical dispensing constitutes a fundamental clinical activity for promoting the rational use of medicines and patient safety. However, the lack of structured and validated instruments can contribute to non-standardised practices, impacting the quality of care and the effectiveness of the interventions performed.
aimsTo develop and validate the content of a clinical guide to support pharmaceutical dispensing practice.
methodsA two-stage methodological study. Initially, the structure of the guide was draughted based on a dispensing algorithm described in the literature and adapted through a focus group comprising 14 professionals, including pharmacists and expert researchers. In the second stage, the content was validated using the Delphi Technique. The items were evaluated for representativeness, clarity, objectivity and precision, and the Content Validity Index (CVI) was calculated.
resultsIn the first round, most items presented a satisfactory CVI, with point adjustments needed in two sections of the guide. The main suggestions involved greater organization into a checklist format and language simplification to favour practical applicability. After the adjustments, the second round achieved full consensus among the experts, confirming the instrument's validity. DISCUSSION: The participatory construction process and the Delphi Technique contributed to the refinement of the guide. Incorporating the experts' suggestions reinforced the importance of usability and standardization as key elements for dispensing support tools. The instrument shows potential to qualify care, reduce practice variability, and support the pharmacist's clinical reasoning. The guide demonstrated content validity and consensus among experts, proving to be a structured tool applicable to pharmaceutical dispensing practice.
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.