MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964961644 · doi:10.1211/096176702776868451

Practice-based pharmaceutical services: a systematic review

2002· review· en· W1964961644 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alison Fish, Margaret Watson, Christine Bond

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Pharmacy Practice · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionInclusion (mineral)Pharmaceutical careIntervention (counseling)Family medicineQuality (philosophy)Systematic reviewAlternative medicineOutreachMEDLINEMedical educationNursingPharmacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background General practice-based pharmaceutical services are increasingly common, ranging from global medication changes (eg, generic switch) to individual patient medication review and educational interventions. Aim To conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness of practice-based pharmaceutical interventions. Design A systematic review of general practice-based pharmaceutical services. Setting General practice in the UK, Australia, Canada, Scandinavia and the US. Outcome measures The effect and cost of practice-based pharmaceutical services. Methods Electronic databases were searched and pharmaceutical organisations were contacted. Studies fulfilling the review criteria were considered for inclusion. Duplicate independent data screening and abstraction was undertaken. Three indicators were used to assess the quality of included studies: method of random allocation; allocation concealment; and proportion of subjects followed to the end of the study. Results A total of 2,707 references were identified: 256 full publications were retrieved and 16 randomised, controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. Included studies assessed either the professional interface (educational outreach and general prescribing advice) or the patient interface (medication review and patient-specific prescribing advice). Three trials included all three quality markers. Most studies were effective in achieving one or more of the desired outcomes from pharmaceutical intervention. Two trials showed no statistically significant differences between the study and control groups post intervention. Conclusions Many evaluations of practice-based pharmaceutical s***érvices have been published but few meet recognised standards of trial methodology. The results of this review suggest that practice-based pharmaceutical services are effective in achieving desired changes; however, more robust evidence is needed to confirm whether they are effective, efficient and sustainable.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.007
Bibliometrics0.0120.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.261
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Pharmacy PracticeSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207