MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pharmaceutical care of patients with heart failure

2005· article· en· W2060582822 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsMedicinePharmaceutical careClinical trialHeart failureRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)PharmacistConfidence intervalInternal medicineEmergency medicinePhysical therapyPediatricsPharmacyFamily medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of a pharmacist-led pharmaceutical care programme, involving optimization of drug treatment and intensive education and self-monitoring of patients with heart failure (HF) within the United Arab Emirates (UAE), on a range of clinical and humanistic outcome measures. METHODS: The study was a randomized, controlled, longitudinal, prospective clinical trial at Al-Ain Hospital, Al-Ain, UAE. Patients were recruited from the general medical wards and from cardiology and medical outpatient clinics. HF patients who fulfilled the entrance criteria, and had no exclusion criteria present, were identified for inclusion in the study. After recruitment, patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: intervention group or control group. Intervention patients received a structured pharmaceutical care service while control patients received traditional services. Patient follow-up took place when patients attended scheduled outpatient clinics (every 3 months). A total of 104 patients in each group completed the trial (12 months). The patients were generally suffering from mild to moderate HF (NYHA Class 1, 29.5%; Class 2, 50.5%; Class 3, 16%; and Class 4, 4%). RESULTS: Over the study period, intervention patients showed significant (P < 0.05) improvements in a range of summary outcome measures [AUC (95% confidence limits)] including exercise tolerance [2-min walk test: 1607.2 (1474.9, 1739.5) m.month in intervention patients vs. 1403.3 (1256.5, 1549.8) in control patients], forced vital capacity [31.6 (30.8, 32.4) l.month in the intervention patients vs. 27.8 (26.8, 28.9) in control patients], health-related quality of life, as measured by the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire [463.5 (433.2, 493.9) unit.month in intervention patients vs. 637.5 (597.2, 677.7) in control patients; a lower score in this measure indicates better health-related quality of life]. The number of individual patients who reported adherence to prescribed medications was higher (P < 0.05) in the intervention group (85 vs. 35), as was adherence to lifestyle advice (75 vs. 29) at the final assessment (12 months). There was a tendency to have a higher incidence of casualty department visits by intervention patients, but a lower rate of hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: The research provides clear evidence that the delivery of pharmaceutical care to patients with HF can lead to significant clinical and humanistic benefits.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.371 · 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