An analysis of quality of systematic reviews on pharmacist health interventions

Why Are We Still a Worm World in the 2020s? An Overview of Risk Factors and Endemicity for Soil-Transmitted Helminthiasis

PURPOSE

Soil-transmitted helminthiasis (STH) is one of the most common chronic infections in developing countries associated with poor socioeconomic and sanitary conditions. The main objective of this overview was to evaluate the influence of environmental factors, risk factors related to the host, and control strategies on the prevalence of STH in different regions of the world.

METHODS

LILACS, PubMed, Web of Knowledge, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials (gray literature) databases were used to obtain the systematic reviews published until December 2020. The methodological quality of systematic reviews was assessed using the standard criteria recommended by AMSTAR.

RESULTS

The initial results of the bibliographic search identified 1448 articles, of which 66 studies were read in full and 16 met the inclusion criteria. All the reviews included in this overview associated variations in the global prevalence of STH with at least one of the factors related to the environment, host, and/or control strategies. Climate, temperature, soil moisture, precipitation, mass drug administration, lack of access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), and non-use of footwear were considered the main factors associated with the prevalence of STH. Socioeconomic factors, low educational level, and wearing shoes were universal factors related to prevalence, regardless of the location studied.

CONCLUSION

The combination of environmental factors, with factors associated with hosts that predispose infection and reinfection of helminths, as well as the adoption of control strategies based on the treatment of target populations instead of the entire population, influenced the prevalence of STH in all the continents evaluated.

Implementation effect of a hierarchical pharmaceutical service pattern in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the effect of implementing a hierarchical pharmaceutical service pattern based on the knowledge-attitude-practice (KAP) intervention theory on patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.

METHODS

Eligible patients were randomly divided into an intervention or control group. Pharmaceutical service classification criteria were formulated and used to provide patients with differing levels of pharmaceutical services. The classification scores and KAP levels of patients before and at various time points after the intervention were analyzed. The rates of acute attacks and adverse reactions, related clinical test indices, and disease activity were evaluated in both groups.

RESULTS

After 9 months of intervention, the proportions of first- and second-level services in the intervention group declined by 14.43% and 3.94%, respectively, compared with the control group, and the rates of acute attacks and adverse reactions declined by 18.26% and 12.43%, respectively. The KAP level, clinical test indices, and disease activity were significantly different between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Providing patients with systemic lupus erythematosus with pertinent hierarchical pharmaceutical services based on the KAP theory was instrumental in changing patients' behavior and contributed to facilitating disease self-management, thus improving the quality of pharmaceutical services.

Development of a primary care pharmacy outcomes framework: An umbrella literature review

BACKGROUND

An aging population and rising multi-morbidity has shifted healthcare provision from secondary to primary care. Pharmacy-led services have been introduced to support this. The development of an outcomes framework for these services would facilitate conclusions to be drawn on their effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To identify outcomes used to evaluate pharmacy-led medication therapy and disease management services within primary care settings to develop an outcomes framework for future studies.

METHODS

An umbrella literature review was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and PsycINFO were searched in June 2020 to identify relevant articles. Eligible reviews were those including studies published from 2010 onwards which reported on the outcomes of pharmacy-led medication therapy and disease management services within primary care, excluding community pharmacy settings. Data were extracted and a content analysis, guided by the ECHO model, stratified the outcomes into four areas: economic, clinical, humanistic and service.

RESULTS

Twenty-four reviews covering 52 unique studies were identified. Pharmacy-led services included: medication reviews (n=24, 46.2%), disease and therapy management (n=17, 32.7%), educational services (n=6, 11.5%), medicines reconciliation (n=3, 5.8%), and medication compliance support (n=1, 1.9%). Services were commonly targeted towards endocrine (n=23, 44.2%) or cardiovascular diseases (n=20, 38.5%). Outcomes most commonly explored were clinical (n=38, 73.1%) and service outcomes (n=37, 71.2%), followed by humanistic (n=23, 44.2%) and economic outcomes (n=13, 25.0%). Overall, 17 sub-categories of outcomes were identified; common sub-categories were: disease indicators [clinical]; medication use and healthcare utilisation [service]; adherence to medicines [humanistic]; and healthcare costs [economic].

CONCLUSIONS

The findings informed the development of an outcomes framework to guide the evaluation of medication therapy and disease management services, and facilitate international standardised outcome measures within primary care pharmacy to be developed. This could help offer vital evidence on the effectiveness of these services to ensure the pharmacy workforce is working optimally to support primary care.

Methodological standards for conducting and reporting meta-analyses: Ensuring the replicability of meta-analyses of pharmacist-led medication review

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses of clinical pharmacy services are frequently criticized for restricted data transparency and reproducibility.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the methodological characteristics of meta-analyses of pharmacist-led medication reviews, to identify the elements that limit their replicability and robustness, and to propose recommendations for an appropriate conduction and reporting.

METHODS

A meta-research study was conducted. Systematic searches of the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were performed to identify meta-analyses of pharmacist services. Meta-analyses assessing the effect of pharmacist-led medication reviews were selected for data extraction, analysis and replication. Two replication exercises were performed for the two most common outcomes: (i) considering the data provided by authors to construct the meta-analysis and (ii) considering the raw data available in the primary studies included. Prediction intervals (PI), fragility index (FI), and number needed to treat (NNT) were also calculated for each replicated meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Nine studies reporting meta-analyses about pharmacist-led medication review were found comprising 30 different outcomes. Eleven meta-analyses, including six for hospital admission and five for mortality, were replicated. In five meta-analyses, the pooled effect sizes of the replicated meta-analyses differed from the original ones. Only four meta-analyses mentioned the statistical method used. Other meta-analytic parameters (e.g., q-value, tau2) were omitted in all studies. In nine meta-analyses, the data from primary studies had been incorrectly extracted for at least one variable. The PI demonstrated that the uncertainty intervals of the effect sizes were always underestimated by the authors. NNTs showed wide intervals, ranging from benefit to harm, in almost all meta-analyses. Nine recommendations to facilitate the replication of a meta-analysis were proposed: providing all original data needed to build the analysis; informing about the imputed data or data obtained from different sources; performing sensitivity analyses for imputed or unpublished data; inform about all the statistical methods used; providing all statistical results; and reporting the PI, FI and NNT.

CONCLUSION

Errors in data extraction and poor reporting of meta-analytic parameters are common in the pharmacy literature. We proposed nine recommendations to enhance data reproducibility and interpretability. Journal editors and peer reviewers should ensure that authors strictly comply with minimum standards for conduction and reporting of meta-analyses.

Methodological quality and risk of bias of meta-analyses of pharmacy services: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

A suboptimal meta-analysis with misleading conclusions, frequently published in the healthcare journals, can compromise decision making in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reporting quality, methodological quality, and risk of bias of meta-analyses of pharmacy services.

METHODS

Systematic searches to identify all the meta-analyses reporting the effect of pharmacy services were performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The reporting quality, the methodological quality, and the risk of bias of the included meta-analyses were evaluated using PRISMA checklist, R-AMSTAR, and ROBIS, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 109 meta-analyses were eligible for the study. The heterogeneity, the quality of evidence, and the quality analyses were poorly reported on authors' conclusions (14.3%, 14.7%, and 17.4%, respectively). The median scores of PRISMA and R-AMSTAR tolls were 24 (IQR 21.75-25), and 30 (IQR 27-32.5), respectively. Additionally, most of the studies were considered as high risk of bias (n = 83, 76.1%). No association between the date of publication and guideline compliance exists. PRISMA score was higher in studies published in high impact factor journals (rho = 0.313; p = 0.002), in articles that reported the quality of evidence obtained (p = 0.018), and in those that stated the need for future studies in their conclusions (p = 0.011). R-AMSTAR score was higher in studies published in high impact factor journals (rho = 0.338; p = 0.001), in those which reported the quality of evidence (p = 0.002), and in articles that described the quality analyses in their conclusions (p = 0.046). An association between the risk of bias and the recognition of the need for further studies in their conclusions (p = 0.041) was also found.

CONCLUSION

The rapid increase of the meta-analyses of pharmacy services was not associated with higher quality. Mechanistic meta-analyses with poor conclusions are commonly published. Quality of the analyses, strength of evidence, heterogeneity, and absence of confrontation with current guidelines are rarely considered when synthetizing evidence and making recommendations.

A Methodological Quality Assessment of Meta-Analysis Studies in Dance Therapy Using AMSTAR and AMSTAR 2

Although earlier meta-analysis studies have provided evidence-based information useful for decision-making, debate regarding their quality continues. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of meta-analysis studies in the field of dance therapy (DT) using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and AMSTAR 2 assessment tools. Meta-analysis studies on DT were collected from various databases. Seven meta-analysis studies were selected for this study. Our findings showed that the quality level of the meta-analysis studies related to DT was “High” on the AMSTAR evaluation, but their quality decreased to “Low” on the AMSTAR 2 evaluation. Moreover, using AMSTAR 2, 71.43% of the studies fell within the category of “Moderate” or below. There was no statistically significant difference in the quality scores of the characteristics of these studies. Our results suggest that (1) education on meta-analysis guidelines is required to improve the quality of DT-related meta-analysis studies, and (2) methodological caution is warranted, since different outcomes in evaluation scores for each tool may be obtained when using AMSTAR and AMSTAR 2. Based on this study, it is expected that common and specific guidelines for meta-analysis in DT can be established.

Mapping the characteristics of meta-analyses of pharmacy services: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Suboptimal meta-analyses with misleading conclusions are frequently published in the health areas, and they can compromise decision making in clinical practice.

AIM OF THE REVIEW

This systematic review aimed to map the characteristics of published meta-analyses of pharmacy services and their association with the study conclusions.

METHOD

We searched electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) to identify published meta-analyses of pharmacy services up to January 2019. Components of meta-analyses were extracted (i.e. studies' metadata; methods used in the systematic review; description of the statistical model used for the meta-analysis; main results; conflict of interest and funding source). The methodological quality was evaluated using the R-AMSTAR tool.

RESULTS

A total of 85 meta-analyses were included, with 2016 as the median publication year. Overall, the methodological quality of meta-analyses of pharmacy services was considered suboptimal. Only one-third of authors registered a protocol; complete search strategy and raw data were provided by 55.3% and 9.4% of studies, respectively. Evidence strength (GRADE) was evaluated in only 19.2% of studies. PRISMA and Cochrane recommendations were stated to be followed in 60% and 27.4% of articles, respectively. Around half of studies performed sensitivity analysis, however, the prediction interval was presented by only one meta-analysis. Studies that favoured the pharmacists' interventions poorly discussed the methodological quality and heterogeneity of primary trials.

CONCLUSION

Poor conduction and reporting were observed in meta-analyses of pharmacy services, especially in those that favoured the pharmacist's interventions. Reproducibility and transparency should be rigorously ensured by journal editors and peer-reviewers.

Effectiveness of pharmaceutical care for drug treatment adherence in women with lupus nephritis in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: a randomized controlled trial

Objective

Studies have been conducted to determine the causal factors and clinical consequences of non-adherence to treatment in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). However, no interventions have been performed to increase drug adherence. Our objective was to assess the effectiveness of pharmaceutical care (PC) for drug treatment adherence in lupus nephritis (LN).

Methods

This was a randomized clinical trial (pragmatic trial) in patients with LN in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, allocated in two groups: an intervention group (Dader Method for PC) and a control group (institution's usual care). Drug treatment adherence was measured by the combination of five questions normally used in clinical practice.

Results

A total of 131 patients were randomized, and 122 completed the study, with a mean follow-up of 12.7 months and use of six drugs per day and 10–12 doses per day. Low adherence was observed at baseline (intervention group: 30%; control group: 29%). PC showed 27% effectiveness (95% confidence interval (CI) –6% to 50%) in the intention to treat analysis and 31% (95% CI 0–52%) in per protocol analysis, considering all drugs. As for adherence to specific drugs for SLE, effectiveness of PC was 64% (95% CI 34–80%) with intention-to-treat analysis and 62% (95% CI 32–79%) in per protocol analysis.

Conclusions

PC was effective for increasing drug treatment adherence in SLE. The detailed account provided by the Dader Method of the difficulties with patients' drug therapy proved invaluable to approach non-adherence.

Identification and Description of Reliable Evidence for 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern Guidelines for Cataract in the Adult Eye

Importance

Trustworthy clinical practice guidelines require reliable systematic reviews of the evidence to support recommendations. Since 2016, the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) has partnered with Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite to update their guidelines, the Preferred Practice Patterns (PPP).

Objective

To describe experiences and findings related to identifying reliable systematic reviews that support topics likely to be addressed in the 2016 update of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines on cataract in the adult eye.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cross-sectional study. Systematic reviews on the management of cataract were searched for in an established database. Each relevant systematic review was mapped to 1 or more of the 24 management categories listed under the Management section of the table of contents of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Data were extracted to determine the reliability of each systematic review using prespecified criteria, and the reliable systematic reviews were examined to find whether they were referenced in the 2016 AAO PPP guidelines. For comparison, we assessed whether the reliable systematic reviews published before February 2010 the last search date of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines were referenced in the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite did not provide systematic reviews to the AAO during the development of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Systematic review reliability was defined by reporting eligibility criteria, performing a comprehensive literature search, assessing methodologic quality of included studies, using appropriate methods for meta-analysis, and basing conclusions on review findings.

Results

From 99 systematic reviews on management of cataract, 46 (46%) were classified as reliable. No evidence that a comprehensive search had been conducted was the most common reason a review was classified as unreliable. All 46 reliable systematic reviews were cited in the 2016 AAO PPP guidelines, and 8 of 15 available reliable reviews (53%) were cited in the 2011 PPP guidelines.

Conclusions and Relevance

The partnership between Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite and the AAO provides the AAO access to an evidence base of relevant and reliable systematic reviews, thereby supporting robust and efficient clinical practice guidelines development to improve the quality of eye care.

Pharmacist-participated medication review in different practice settings: Service or intervention? An overview of systematic reviews

Introduction

Medication review (MR) is a pharmacy practice conducted in different settings that has a positive impact on patient health outcomes. In this context, systematic reviews on MR have restricted the assessment of this practice using criteria such as methodological quality, practice settings, and patient outcomes. Therefore, expanding research on this subject is necessary to facilitate the understanding of the effectiveness of MR and the comparison of its results.

Aim

To examine the panorama of systematic reviews on pharmacist-participated MR in different practice settings.

Methods

A literature search was undertaken in Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS), Embase, PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases through January 2018 using keywords for "medication review", "systematic review", and "pharmacist". Two independents investigators screened titles, abstracts, full texts; assessed methodological quality; and, extracted data from the included reviews.

Results

Seventeen systematic reviews were included, of which sixteen presented low to moderate methodological quality. Most of reviews were conducted in Europe (n = 7), included controlled primary studies (n = 16), elderly patients (n = 9), and long-term care facilities (n = 8). Seven reviews addressed MR as an intervention and thirteen reviews cited collaboration between physicians and pharmacists in the practice of MR. In addition, thirteen terminologies for MR were used and the main objective was to identify and solve drug-related problems and/or optimize the drug use (n = 11).

Conclusion

There is considerable heterogeneity in practice settings, population, definitions, terminologies, and approach of MR as well as poor description of patient care process in the systematic reviews. These facts may limit the comparison, summarization and understanding of the results of MR. Furthermore, the methodological quality of most systematic reviews was below ideal. Thus, international agreement on the MR process is necessary to assess, compare and optimize the quality of care provided.

Roles and Impacts of the Transplant Pharmacist: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Pharmacists have been involved in the care of transplant recipients for several decades, and a growing body of literature shows the beneficial effects of clinical pharmacist care on important outcomes for these patients.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to describe the roles and impacts of pharmacists in a solid organ transplant setting. The secondary objective was to describe and rate the pharmacists' interventions.

DATA SOURCES

Three databases-PubMed, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews-were searched from January 1, 1990, to June 16, 2015.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All studies addressing the roles of pharmacists and the impacts of clinical pharmacy services on the care of solid organ transplant recipients were considered. Only studies providing a statistical analysis were included. Design, setting, sample size, patient characteristics, pharmacists' interventions, study bias, and outcomes were extracted for analysis.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Four randomized controlled trials, 4 cohort studies, 3 pre-post studies, and 1 quasi-randomized controlled trial were included in the review, representing a total of 1837 patients. Of the 12 studies included, 8 specifically focused on renal transplant, and 1 each focused on liver, lung, abdominal organ, and general solid organ transplant. The pivotal pharmacist activities leading to the main patient outcomes were medication counselling (n = 8 studies), medication reconciliation (n = 5), and reviewing and optimizing drug therapy (n = 3). Improvements to medication adherence (n = 6 studies), morbidity (n = 4), costs (n = 2), and medication errors (n = 2) were reported.

CONCLUSION

Currently available evidence suggests that pharmacists can improve patient outcomes in the solid organ transplant setting. Adherence, morbidity, costs, and medication errors were identified as the main outcomes that were improved by pharmaceutical interventions. Transplant programs need to invest more in this resource.

Healthy food procurement and nutrition standards in public facilities: evidence synthesis and consensus policy recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Unhealthy foods are widely available in public settings across Canada, contributing to diet-related chronic diseases, such as obesity. This is a concern given that public facilities often provide a significant amount of food for consumption by vulnerable groups, including children and seniors. Healthy food procurement policies, which support procuring, distributing, selling, and/or serving healthier foods, have recently emerged as a promising strategy to counter this public health issue by increasing access to healthier foods. Although numerous Canadian health and scientific organizations have recommended such policies, they have not yet been broadly implemented in Canada.

METHODS

To inform further policy action on healthy food procurement in a Canadian context, we: (1) conducted an evidence synthesis to assess the impact of healthy food procurement policies on health outcomes and sales, intake, and availability of healthier food, and (2) hosted a consensus conference in September 2014. The consensus conference invited experts with public health/nutrition policy research expertise, as well as health services and food services practitioner experience, to review evidence, share experiences, and develop a consensus statement/recommendations on healthy food procurement in Canada.

RESULTS

Findings from the evidence synthesis and consensus recommendations for healthy food procurement in Canada are described. Specifically, we outline recommendations for governments, publicly funded institutions, decision-makers and professionals, citizens, and researchers.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of healthy food procurement policies can increase Canadians' access to healthier foods as part of a broader vision for food policy in Canada.

"Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews in radiation oncology: A systematic review"

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in Radiation Oncology.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for all eligible systematic reviews and meta-analyses in Radiation Oncology from 1966 to 2015. Methodological characteristics were abstracted from all works that satisfied the inclusion criteria and quality was assessed using the critical appraisal tool, AMSTAR. Regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with a higher score of quality.

RESULTS

Following exclusion based on a priori criteria, 410 studies (157 systematic reviews and 253 meta-analyses) satisfied the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were found to be of fair to good quality while systematic reviews were found to be of less than fair quality. Factors associated with higher scores of quality in the multivariable analysis were including primary studies consisting of randomized control trials, performing a meta-analysis, and applying a recommended guideline related to establishing a systematic review protocol and/or reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses may introduce a high risk of bias if applied to inform decision-making based on AMSTAR. We recommend that decision-makers in Radiation Oncology scrutinize the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses prior to assessing their utility to inform evidence-based medicine and researchers adhere to methodological standards outlined in validated guidelines when embarking on a systematic review.

Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) were developed to contribute to implementing evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. As SRs assessing a cohort of SRs is becoming more prevalent in the literature and with the increased uptake of SR evidence for decision-making, methodological quality and standard of reporting of SRs is of interest. The objective of this study is to evaluate SR adherence to the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) and PRISMA reporting guidelines and the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) quality assessment tools as evaluated in methodological overviews.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® databases were searched from January 1990 to October 2014. Title and abstract screening and full-text screening were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the quality or reporting of a cohort of SRs of interventions using PRISMA, QUOROM, OQAQ, or AMSTAR were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports and SRs respectively.

RESULTS

Of the 20,765 independent records retrieved from electronic searching, 1189 reports were reviewed for eligibility at full text, of which 56 reports (5371 SRs in total) evaluating the PRISMA, QUOROM, AMSTAR, and/or OQAQ tools were included. Notable items include the following: of the SRs using PRISMA, over 85% (1532/1741) provided a rationale for the review and less than 6% (102/1741) provided protocol information. For reports using QUOROM, only 9% (40/449) of SRs provided a trial flow diagram. However, 90% (402/449) described the explicit clinical problem and review rationale in the introduction section. Of reports using AMSTAR, 30% (534/1794) used duplicate study selection and data extraction. Conversely, 80% (1439/1794) of SRs provided study characteristics of included studies. In terms of OQAQ, 37% (499/1367) of the SRs assessed risk of bias (validity) in the included studies, while 80% (1112/1387) reported the criteria for study selection.

CONCLUSIONS

Although reporting guidelines and quality assessment tools exist, reporting and methodological quality of SRs are inconsistent. Mechanisms to improve adherence to established reporting guidelines and methodological assessment tools are needed to improve the quality of SRs.

Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study

BACKGROUND

The methodological quality and completeness of reporting of the systematic reviews (SRs) is fundamental to optimal implementation of evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. Methods exist to appraise SRs yet little is known about how they are used in SRs or where there are potential gaps in research best-practice guidance materials. The aims of this study are to identify reports assessing the methodological quality (MQ) and/or reporting quality (RQ) of a cohort of SRs and to assess their number, general characteristics, and approaches to 'quality' assessment over time.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® were searched from January 1990 to October 16, 2014, for reports assessing MQ and/or RQ of SRs. Title, abstract, and full-text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the MQ and/or RQ of a cohort of ten or more SRs of interventions were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports.

RESULTS

Of 20,765 unique records retrieved, 1189 of them were reviewed for full-text review, of which 76 reports were included. Eight previously published approaches to assessing MQ or reporting guidelines used as proxy to assess RQ were used in 80% (61/76) of identified reports. These included two reporting guidelines (PRISMA and QUOROM) and five quality assessment tools (AMSTAR, R-AMSTAR, OQAQ, Mulrow, Sacks) and GRADE criteria. The remaining 24% (18/76) of reports developed their own criteria. PRISMA, OQAQ, and AMSTAR were the most commonly used published tools to assess MQ or RQ. In conjunction with other approaches, published tools were used in 29% (22/76) of reports, with 36% (8/22) assessing adherence to both PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria and 26% (6/22) using QUOROM and OQAQ.

CONCLUSIONS

The methods used to assess quality of SRs are diverse, and none has become universally accepted. The most commonly used quality assessment tools are AMSTAR, OQAQ, and PRISMA. As new tools and guidelines are developed to improve both the MQ and RQ of SRs, authors of methodological studies are encouraged to put thoughtful consideration into the use of appropriate tools to assess quality and reporting.

A Systematic Review of Evidence-Based Community Pharmacy Services Aimed at the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide and has a substantial impact on people's health and quality of life. CVD also causes an increased use of health care resources and services, representing a significant proportion of health care expenditure. Integrating evidence-based community pharmacy services is seen as an asset to reduce the burden of CVD on individuals and the health care system.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) identify community pharmacy evidence-based services designed to help prevent CVD and (b) provide fundamental information that is needed to assess their potential adaptation to other community pharmacy settings.

METHODS

This review used the DEPICT database, which includes 488 randomized controlled trials (RCT) that address the evaluation of pharmacy services. Articles reviewing these RCTs were identified for the DEPICT database through a systematic search of the following databases: MEDLINE, Scopus, SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), and DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals). The DEPICT database was reviewed to identify evidence-based services delivered in the community pharmacy setting with the purpose of preventing CVD. An evidence-based service was defined as a service that has been shown to have a positive effect (compared with usual care) in a high-quality RCT. From each evidence-based service, fundamental information was retrieved to facilitate adaptation to other community pharmacy settings.

RESULTS

From the DEPICT database, 14 evidence-based community pharmacy services that addressed the prevention of CVD were identified. All services, except 1, targeted populations with a mean age above 60 years. Pharmacy services encompassed a wide range of practical applications or techniques that can be classified into 3 groups: activities directed at patients, activities directed at health care professionals, and assessments to gather patient-related information in order to support the previous activities.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides pharmacy service planners and policymakers with a comprehensive list of evidence-based services that have the potential to be adapted to different settings from which they were originally implemented and evaluated in order to reduce the burden of CVD.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this review was provided by the University of Technology Sydney Chancellor's Postdoctoral Fellowship awarded to Sabater-Hernández. No other potential conflict of interest was declared. Study concept and design were contributed by Sabater-Hernández, Fernandez-Llimos, Rotta, and Correr. Sabater-Galindo and Sabater-Hernández took the lead in data collection, along with Franco-Trigo and Rotta. Data interpretation was performed by Sabater-Hernández, Durks, and Lopes. The manuscript was written primarily by Sabater-Hernández, along with Hossain, and revised by Fernandez-Llimos, Rotta, and Benrimoj, with assistance from Durks, Sabater-Galindo, Franco-Trigo, and Correr.

Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions

BACKGROUND

Overviews of reviews (overviews) compile information from multiple systematic reviews (SRs) to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for decision-making. It is recommended that authors assess and report the methodological quality of SRs in overviews-for example, using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Currently, there is variation in whether and how overview authors assess and report SR quality, and limited guidance is available. Our objectives were to: examine methodological considerations involved in using AMSTAR to assess the quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs in overviews of healthcare interventions; identify challenges (and develop potential decision rules) when using AMSTAR in overviews; and examine the potential impact of considering methodological quality when making inclusion decisions in overviews.

METHODS

We selected seven overviews of healthcare interventions and included all SRs meeting each overview's inclusion criteria. For each SR, two reviewers independently conducted AMSTAR assessments with consensus and discussed challenges encountered. We also examined the correlation between AMSTAR assessments and SR results/conclusions.

RESULTS

Ninety-five SRs were included (30 Cochrane, 65 non-Cochrane). Mean AMSTAR assessments (9.6/11 vs. 5.5/11; p < 0.001) and inter-rater reliability (AC1 statistic: 0.84 vs. 0.69; "almost perfect" vs. "substantial" using the Landis & Koch criteria) were higher for Cochrane compared to non-Cochrane SRs. Four challenges were identified when applying AMSTAR in overviews: the scope of the SRs and overviews often differed; SRs examining similar topics sometimes made different methodological decisions; reporting of non-Cochrane SRs was sometimes poor; and some non-Cochrane SRs included other SRs as well as primary studies. Decision rules were developed to address each challenge. We found no evidence that AMSTAR assessments were correlated with SR results/conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate that the AMSTAR tool can be used successfully in overviews that include Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs, though decision rules may be useful to circumvent common challenges. Findings support existing recommendations that quality assessments of SRs in overviews be conducted independently, in duplicate, with a process for consensus. Results also suggest that using methodological quality to guide inclusion decisions (e.g., to exclude poorly conducted and reported SRs) may not introduce bias into the overview process.

Epidemiological characteristics and methodological quality of meta-analyses on diabetes mellitus treatment: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Well-conducted meta-analyses (MAs) are considered as one of the best sources of clinical evidence for treatment decision. MA with methodological flaws may introduce bias and mislead evidence users. The aim of this study is to investigate the characteristics and methodological quality of MAs on diabetes mellitus (DM) treatments.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

Cochrane Database of Systematic Review and Database of Abstract of Reviews of Effects were searched for relevant MAs. Assessing methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR) tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of included MAs. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify association between characteristics of MA and AMSTAR results.

RESULTS

A total of 252 MAs including 4999 primary studies and 13,577,025 patients were included. Over half of the MAs (65.1%) only included type 2 DM patients and 160 MAs (63.5%) focused on pharmacological treatments. About 89.7% MAs performed comprehensive literature search and 89.3% provided characteristics of included studies. Included MAs generally had poor performance on the remaining AMSTAR items, especially in assessing publication bias (39.3%), providing lists of studies (19.0%) and declaring source of support comprehensively (7.5%). Only 62.7% MAs mentioned about harm of interventions. MAs with corresponding author from Asia performed less well in providing MA protocol than those from Europe.

CONCLUSIONS

Methodological quality of MA on DM treatments was unsatisfactory. There is considerable room for improvement, especially in assessing publication bias, providing lists of studies and declaring source of support comprehensively. Also, there is an urgent need for MA authors to report treatment harm comprehensively.

Reviewing the literature, how systematic is systematic?

Introduction Professor Archibald Cochrane, after whom the Cochrane Collaboration is named, was influential in promoting evidence-based clinical practice. He called for "relevant, valid research" to underpin all aspects of healthcare. Systematic reviews of the literature are regarded as a high quality source of cumulative evidence but it is unclear how truly systematic they, or other review articles, are or 'how systematic is systematic?' Today's evidence-based review industry is a burgeoning mix of specialist terminology, collaborations and foundations, databases, portals, handbooks, tools, criteria and training courses. Aim of the review This study aims to identify uses and types of reviews, key issues in planning, conducting, reporting and critiquing reviews, and factors which limit claims to be systematic. Method A rapid review of review articles published in IJCP. Results This rapid review identified 17 review articles published in IJCP between 2010 and 2015 inclusive. It explored the use of different types of review article, the variation and widely available range of guidelines, checklists and criteria which, through systematic application, aim to promote best practice. It also identified common pitfalls in endeavouring to conduct reviews of the literature systematically. Discussion Although a limited set of IJCP reviews were identified, there is clear evidence of the variation in adoption and application of systematic methods. The burgeoning evidence industry offers the tools and guidelines required to conduct systematic reviews, and other types of review, systematically. This rapid review was limited to the database of one journal over a period of 6 years. Although this review was conducted systematically, it is not presented as a systematic review. Conclusion As a research community we have yet to fully engage with readily available guidelines and tools which would help to avoid the common pitfalls. Therefore the question remains, of not just IJCP but potentially all published reviews, 'how systematic is systematic?'

Effectiveness of pharmaceutical care for drug treatment adherence in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Treatment adherence is a primary determinant of the success and effectiveness of healthcare. Lack of adherence can lead to treatment failure and death. Although studies have shown that pharmaceutical intervention can improve drug treatment for patients with chronic diseases, studies on pharmaceutical care are not only inconsistent, they are scarce and limited to developed countries, include few patients, and are not studied in randomized clinical trials. Systemic lupus erythematosus is an autoimmune disease with high hospitalization and case-fatality rates. The adherence rate is low (31.7 %) in this group of patients in Brazil, and drug treatment for the disease is complex. Our objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of pharmaceutical care in drug treatment adherence in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus treated at a rheumatology outpatient clinic in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Methods

A randomized clinical trial (pragmatic trial) will be conducted. Adult participants (women) from a public hospital in Rio de Janeiro with a diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus will be followed for 12 months. A total of 120 patients will be randomized to two groups: intervention (Dader method for pharmaceutical care) and control (health/dietary counseling and risk reduction). The primary outcome will be drug treatment adherence evaluated by the eight-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale. Secondary outcomes will be clinical improvement and quality of life.

Discussion

Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus present with low treatment adherence, thus justifying the mobilization of human resources to optimize their clinical management. Despite the proven effectiveness of pharmaceutical care for various diseases, there are still no studies evaluating its effectiveness in systemic lupus erythematosus. Our hypothesis is that the intervention will also be effective in this patient group.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02330250.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1317-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Interventions for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Are Practice Guidelines Based on Systematic Reviews?

PURPOSE

Are existing systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration incorporated into clinical practice guidelines?

DESIGN

High-quality systematic reviews should be used to underpin evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and clinical care. We examined the reliability of systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and described the main findings of reliable reviews in relation to clinical practice guidelines.

METHODS

Eligible publications were systematic reviews of the effectiveness of treatment interventions for AMD. We searched a database of systematic reviews in eyes and vision without language or date restrictions; the database was up to date as of May 6, 2014. Two authors independently screened records for eligibility and abstracted and assessed the characteristics and methods of each review. We classified reviews as reliable when they reported eligibility criteria, comprehensive searches, methodologic quality of included studies, appropriate statistical methods for meta-analysis, and conclusions based on results. We mapped treatment recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for AMD to systematic reviews and citations of reliable systematic reviews to support each treatment recommendation.

RESULTS

Of 1570 systematic reviews in our database, 47 met inclusion criteria; most targeted neovascular AMD and investigated anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) interventions, dietary supplements, or photodynamic therapy. We classified 33 (70%) reviews as reliable. The quality of reporting varied, with criteria for reliable reporting met more often by Cochrane reviews and reviews whose authors disclosed conflicts of interest. Anti-VEGF agents and photodynamic therapy were the only interventions identified as effective by reliable reviews. Of 35 treatment recommendations extracted from the PPPs, 15 could have been supported with reliable systematic reviews; however, only 1 recommendation cited a reliable intervention systematic review. No reliable systematic review was identified for 20 treatment recommendations, highlighting areas of evidence gaps.

CONCLUSIONS

For AMD, reliable systematic reviews exist for many treatment recommendations in the AAO PPPs and should be cited to support these recommendations. We also identified areas where no high-level evidence exists. Mapping clinical practice guidelines to existing systematic reviews is one way to highlight areas where evidence generation or evidence synthesis is either available or needed.

Characterization of published randomized controlled trials assessing clinical pharmacy services around the world

A critical analysis of the research on clinical pharmacy services with regards to study characteristics has not been undertaken since 1998. However, several meta-analyses have been conducted to demonstrate the impact of pharmacists' interventions in specific medical conditions. These meta-analyses present high heterogeneity in part because the interventions are poorly and inconsistently described in primary studies. The aim of this article is to present the characteristics of randomized control trials (RCTs) that assess clinical pharmacy services to identify areas of improvement in future pharmacy practice research studies. Different emphasis of research across geographic regions of the world were also examined. During these 40 years, 520 articles reporting 439 RCTs assessing clinical pharmacy services were published. Of the 439 studies, 77.7% (n = 341) were published in the year 2000 or thereafter, 41.46% (n = 182) were conducted in the US, 27.56% (n = 121) in Europe, and 30.98% (n = 136) in the rest of the world. Studies in pharmacy practice have improved in terms of design, with an increase in the number of published RCTs after 2000. However, the small sample size of RCTs is still an issue. After 2000, a significantly higher proportion of studies were conducted in community pharmacy, targeting specific medical conditions, and with a higher number of patients randomized to the intervention group. Conversely, a significantly smaller proportion of studies were conducted in the hospital and targeted a single recipient after 2000. Studies conducted in the US had significantly more intervention arms, focused mostly on a specific medical condition, and were performed in primary care. Different health care systems' organization and policies may influence clinical pharmacy services research across countries.

Ensuring consistent reporting of clinical pharmacy services to enhance reproducibility in practice: an improved version of DEPICT

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

DEPICT (Descriptive Elements of Pharmacist Intervention Characterization Tool) was created in response to the frequently reported issue of poor intervention description across studies assessing the impact of clinical pharmacy activities. The aim of this study was to create an improved version of DEPICT (i.e. DEPICT 2) to better characterize clinical pharmacy services in order to ensure consistent reporting, therefore enhancing reproducibility of interventions in practice.

METHOD

A qualitative approach through a thematic content analysis was performed to identify components of pharmacist interventions described in 269 randomized controlled trials. A preliminary version of DEPICT 2 was applied independently by two authors to a random sample of 85 of the 269 RCTs and reliability determined by the prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) or the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The final version of DEPICT 2 was compared against DEPICT 1.

RESULTS

The final version of DEPICT 2 comprised 146 items and 11 domains. The inter-rater agreement analysis showed that DEPICT presented good to optimal reproducibility, with a mean PABAK value of 0.87 (95% CI 0.85-0.89) and a mean ICC value of 0.88 (95% CI 0.62-1.14). The mean difference between items checked in the two versions (DEPICT 2 - DEPICT 1) was 10.58 (95% CI 9.55-11.61), meaning that approximately 11 more components were identified in the new version of DEPICT.

CONCLUSIONS

DEPICT 2 is a reliable tool to characterize components of clinical pharmacy services, which should be used to ensure consistent reporting of interventions to allow their reproducibility in practice.

Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties

OBJECTIVES

To summarize all available evidence on measurement properties in terms of reliability, validity, and feasibility of the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool, including R(evised)-AMSTAR.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psycinfo, and CINAHL were searched for studies containing information on measurement properties of the tools in October 2013. We extracted data on study characteristics and measurement properties. These data were analyzed following measurement criteria.

RESULTS

We included 13 studies, four of them were labeled as validation studies. Nine articles dealt with AMSTAR, two articles dealt with R-AMSTAR, and one article dealt with both instruments. In terms of interrater reliability, most items showed a substantial agreement (>0.6). The median intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the overall score of AMSTAR was 0.83 (range 0.60-0.98), indicating a high agreement. In terms of validity, ICCs were very high with all but one ICC lower than 0.8 when the AMSTAR score was compared with scores from other tools. Scoring AMSTAR takes between 10 and 20 minutes.

CONCLUSION

AMSTAR seems to be reliable and valid. Further investigations for systematic reviews of other study designs than randomized controlled trials are needed. R-AMSTAR should be further investigated as evidence for its use is limited and its measurement properties have not been studied sufficiently. In general, test-retest reliability should be investigated in future studies.

Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions published in Chinese journals

OBJECTIVES

Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of nursing interventions have become increasingly popular in China. This review provides the first examination of epidemiological characteristics of these SRs as well as compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews guidelines. The purpose of this study was to examine epidemiologic and reporting characteristics as well as the methodologic quality of SRs and MAs of nursing interventions published in Chinese journals.

METHODS

Four Chinese databases were searched (the Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database, Chinese Scientific Journal Full-text Database, Chinese Journal Full-text Database, and Wanfang Database) for SRs and MAs of nursing intervention from inception through June 2013. Data were extracted into Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA). The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses checklists were used to assess methodologic quality and reporting characteristics, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 144 SRs were identified, most (97.2%) of which used "systematic review" or "meta-analyses" in the titles. None of the reviews had been updated. Nearly half (41%) were written by nurses, and more than half (61%) were reported in specialist journals. The most common conditions studied were endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases, and neoplasms. Most (70.8%) reported information about quality assessment, whereas less than half (25%) reported assessing for publication bias. None of the reviews reported a conflict of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

Although many SRs of nursing interventions have been published in Chinese journals, the quality of these reviews is of concern. As a potential key source of information for nurses and nursing administrators, not only were many of these reviews incomplete in the information they provided, but also some results were misleading. Improving the quality of SRs of nursing interventions conducted and published by nurses in China is urgently needed in order to increase the value of these studies.

[Review of meta-analysis research on exercise in South Korea]

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of meta-analysis regarding exercise using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) as well as to compare effect size according to outcomes.

METHODS

Electronic databases including the Korean Studies Information Service System (KISS), the National Assembly Library and the DBpia, HAKJISA and RISS4U for the dates 1990 to January 2014 were searched for 'meta-analysis' and 'exercise' in the fields of medical, nursing, physical therapy and physical exercise in Korea. AMSTAR was scored for quality assessment of the 33 articles included in the study. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA and χ²-test.

RESULTS

The mean score for AMSTAR evaluations was 4.18 (SD=1.78) and about 67% were classified at the low-quality level and 30% at the moderate-quality level. The scores of quality were statistically different by field of research, number of participants, number of databases, financial support and approval by IRB. The effect size that presented in individual studies were different by type of exercise in the applied intervention.

CONCLUSION

This critical appraisal of meta-analysis published in various field that focused on exercise indicates that a guideline such as the PRISMA checklist should be strongly recommended for optimum reporting of meta-analysis across research fields.

Improving the adherence of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with pharmacy care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Oral medication for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus plays an important role in diabetes care and is associated with a high level self-care behavior and self-management. However, poor adherence to diabetes treatment is common which causes severe health complications and increased mortality. Barriers to adherence may consist of complex treatment regimens often along with long-term multi-therapies, side effects due to the medication as well as insufficient, incomprehensible or confusing information or instructions provided by the health care provider. Multidisciplinary approaches can support adherence success and can enable a more effective management of diabetes care. One approach in diabetes care can be the involvement of a pharmacist. The aim was to analyze the effectiveness of adherence-enhancing pharmacist interventions for oral medication in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. The study quality was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

Of 491 hits, six publications were included. Two studies mainly examining educational interventions showed a significant improvement in adherence. Moreover, the quality of the included studies was deficient.

CONCLUSION

Although pharmacist interventions might potentially improve adherence to type 2 diabetes mellitus medication, high-quality studies are needed to assess effectiveness.

Impact of choice of quality appraisal tool for systematic reviews in overviews

OBJECTIVE

The question whether the choice of a critical appraisal tool has an impact on the result of the evidence synthesis in systematic reviews has been neglected by research. This is also true for psychometric properties of critical appraisal tools. The objective of the study is to exemplify that in the context of overviews (reviews of reviews).

METHODS

Based on a published overview investigating the hospital volume-outcome relationship in surgery, 32 therein included systematic reviews were independently evaluated with four critical appraisal tools by two reviewers. We rated the relationship on a five-point rating scale using qualitative evidence synthesis. Measures of reliability and correlation coefficients were calculated.

RESULTS

The result of the evidence synthesis was not dependent on the choice of a critical appraisal tool. Inter-rater reliability differed depending on the tool, Cohens Kappa ranging from 0.47 to 0.76. There was a high heterogeneity between the two pairs of reviewers.

CONCLUSION

The choice of a critical appraisal tool has no impact on the result of the evidence synthesis, despite differences in the covered components by each CAT. Further studies should concentrate on investigating psychometric properties and the impact of choice of CATs on the evidence synthesis in other contexts. The high heterogeneity between the two pairs of reviewers, all of them experienced in appraising systematic reviews, indicates a degree of interpretability in the items.

Exploring the Quality of Systematic Reviews on Pharmacist Interventions in Patients With Diabetes: An Overview

OBJECTIVE

To assess the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis studies on pharmacist interventions in patients with diabetes.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Scopus, and LILACS databases for systematic reviews and meta-analysis studies published from January 1990 to June 2013. The standardized search strategy included the use of MeSH terms or text words related to pharmacist interventions, diabetes, and systematic reviews.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

The overview included systematic reviews and meta-analysis studies published in English, Portuguese, or Spanish that evaluated the effect of pharmacist intervention on outcomes for diabetic patients. Two independent authors performed study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment with a consensus process to address disagreements. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklists were used to assess reporting characteristics and methodological quality, respectively.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The literature search yielded 101 records of potential interest, of which 7 satisfied the inclusion criteria. The total average (SD) for PRISMA and AMSTAR scores were 17.4 (5.6) out of 27 and 6.9 (2.0) out of 11, respectively. The most frequent problems included nonregistration of study protocol, absence of a list of excluded studies, and unclear acknowledgment of conflicts of interests.

CONCLUSION

The reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis studies were suboptimal, with some areas needing further improvement. It is necessary to ensure better transparency and reproducibility in the literature of clinical pharmacy services for diabetic patients.

Evidence of the clinical effectiveness of cognitive pharmaceutical services for aged patients

BACKGROUND

cognitive pharmaceutical services (CPSs) encompass a variety of pharmacists' interventions to optimise pharmacotherapy. The clinical effectiveness of CPSs for aged patients remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

to analyse and describe the evidence of the clinical effectiveness of CPSs in aged patients by means of performing a systematic review of systematic reviews.

METHODS

using the recommended methodology by Cochrane, a search was undertaken for systematic reviews of the clinical effectiveness of CPSs in MEDLINE, EMBASE, DOAJ, SCIELO and COCHRANE LIBRARY. Reviews were assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument. Quality of the evidence in the reviews was ranked using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

a total of 14 systematic reviews and one meta-analysis were analysed. The overall quality of the reviews was moderate. High and moderate strength of evidence was found for the positive effect of certain CPSs on reducing the number and improving the appropriateness of medicines. There was conflicting evidence of the effect on adherence. There was limited evidence of high and moderate strength on clinical outcomes. No positive evidence was found on mortality, hospitalisations, functional capacity and cognitive function. No systematic reviews reported the effect on the level of control of health problems.

CONCLUSIONS

certain types of CPSs reduce the number of medicines and improve the appropriateness of prescriptions. Longer follow-up periods and/or the use of surrogate clinical variables measuring the short-term impact are required to demonstrate the effect on clinical outcomes.

A Tool to Characterize the Components of Pharmacist Interventions in Clinical Pharmacy Services: The DEPICT Project

BACKGROUND

The complexity of clinical pharmacy services usually leads to an inconsistent or even poor description of their interventions in scientific reports. To ensure comparability and reproducibility of the evidence, an in-depth description of pharmacist interventions is required.

OBJECTIVE

To validate a new tool called DEPICT (Descriptive Elements of Pharmacist Intervention Characterization Tool) to characterize clinical pharmacy services.

METHODS

We developed a 3-phase study. First, to create a theoretical framework, an overview of systematic reviews was performed in PubMed between 2000 and 2010. Then, an in-depth analysis of the included studies was carried out to identify a list of components in order to create the instrument. Finally, 2 independent raters separately applied the tool to a random sample of 28 randomized clinical trials extracted from the systematic reviews. Interrater agreement was evaluated using PABAK (prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted κ) coefficient or intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

We included 49 systematic reviews in our overview. Analysis of these studies resulted in 58 intervention components, with 57 dichotomous variables and 1 discrete variable. These items resulted in a preliminary version of the instrument. The reliability analysis showed that 8 binary items of this version had a PABAK less than or equal to 0.60. These items were then excluded or modified, resulting in a final version of the tool, with 54 items organized into 12 domains. DEPICT showed an average PABAK of 0.85 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.88) and an ICC of 1.0. Twenty items presented a PABAK value between 0.61 and 0.80 (substantial agreement) and 33 had a value between 0.81 and 1.0 (almost perfect agreement).

CONCLUSIONS

DEPICT is a reproducible instrument for describing the components of pharmacist interventions performed as part of clinical pharmacy services. It allows retrospective analysis of published studies and can be used as a reference guide to report pharmacist interventions in future studies.

Quality assessment of the methods used in published opioid conversion reviews

The study objective was to assess methodological quality of opioid conversion systematic reviews. The electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus were used to identify the systematic reviews from the earliest available date until April 2012. Studies were not restricted based on type of opioid, country, or languages. Methodological quality was evaluated using the "Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)." A total of 2772 articles were found from which five met inclusions criteria. No review mentioned about the duplicate study selection and data extraction. Two reviews included a list of studies that were excluded studies. One study did not provided information on the characteristics of primary studies that were included. Of the three reviews that evaluated the quality of primary studies, two used the quality of included studies in formulating conclusions. Only two reviews provided information about conflicts of interest. Of the five included systematic reviews, three reached a moderate score; two had poor quality. Specific recommendations to improve methodological quality would include performing the data selection and extraction in duplicate, listing or showing the flowchart of studies that were included and excluded along with the reasons, including the main studies data illustrating tables, and including an assessment of the quality of the primary included studies.

Medication reviews by clinical pharmacists at hospitals lead to improved patient outcomes: a systematic review

Suboptimal medication use may lead to morbidity, mortality and increased costs. To reduce unnecessary patient harm, medicines management including medication reviews can be provided by clinical pharmacists. Some recent studies have indicated a positive effect of this service, but the quality and outcomes vary among studies. Hence, there is a need for compiling the evidence within this area. The aim of this systematic MiniReview was to identify, assess and summarize the literature investigating the effect of pharmacist-led medication reviews in hospitalized patients. Five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library) were searched from their inception to 2011 in addition to citation tracking and hand search. Only original research papers published in English describing pharmacist-led medication reviews in a hospital setting including minimum 100 patients or 100 interventions were included in the final assessment. A total of 836 research papers were identified, and 31 publications were included in the study: 21 descriptive studies and 10 controlled studies, of which 6 were randomized controlled trials. The pharmacist interventions were well implemented with acceptance rates from 39% to 100%. The 10 controlled studies generally show a positive effect on medication use and costs, satisfaction with the service and positive as well as insignificant effects on health service use. Several outcomes were statistically insignificant, but these were predominantly associated with low sample sizes or low acceptance rates. Therefore, future research within this area should be designed using rigorous design, large sample sizes and includes comparable outcome measures for patient health outcomes.

Quality assessment of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of nursing interventions conducted by Korean reviewers

BACKGROUND

A systematic review is used to investigate the best available evidence of clinical safety and effectiveness of healthcare intervention. This requires methodological rigor in order to minimize bias and random error. The purpose of this study is to assess the quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses for nursing interventions conducted by Korean researchers.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases from 1950 to July 2010, including ovidMEDLINE, ovidEMBASE, and Korean databases, including KoreaMed, Korean Medical Database, and Korean studies Information Service System etc. Two reviewers independently screened and selected all references, and assessed the quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses using the "Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews" (AMSTAR) tool.

RESULTS

Twenty two systematic reviews or meta-analyses were included in this study. The median overall score (out of 11) for included reviews was 5 (range 2-11) and the mean overall score for AMSTAR was 4.7 (95% confidence interval 3.8-5.7). Nine out of 22 reviews were rated as low quality (AMSTAR score 0-4), 11 were rated as moderate quality (AMSTAR score 5-8), and two reviews were categorized as high quality (AMSTAR score 9-11).

CONCLUSIONS

The methodological quality of published reviews on nursing interventions conducted by Korean reviewers was assessed as low to moderate. In order to use the best available evidence in clinical decision making, reviewers should conduct systematic reviews or meta- analyses using rigorous research methods.