MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072287615 · doi:10.1136/ebm.12.1.22

Periodic telephone counselling for polypharmacy improved compliance and reduced mortality

2007· letter· en· W2072287615 on OpenAlexaff
Ross T. Tsuyuki

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolypharmacyMedicineCompliance (psychology)PharmacistTelephone counselingPatient complianceFamily medicineRandomized controlled trialEmergency medicineIntensive care medicinePsychologyPharmacyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wu JY, Leung WY, Chang S, et al . Effectiveness of telephone counselling by a pharmacist in reducing mortality in patients receiving polypharmacy: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2006;333:522. [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q In patients receiving polypharmacy, does periodic telephone counselling by a pharmacist improve compliance and reduce mortality? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★☆☆ Internal Medicine ★★★★★☆☆ ### ![Graphic][3]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Allocation: {concealed*}†. ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Blinding: {unblinded}†.* ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Follow up period: 2 years or until death (mean 23.2 mo). ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Setting: specialist medical clinics in the Prince of Wales Hospital in Hong Kong, China. ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Patients: patients who were prescribed ⩾5 drugs on ⩾2 consecutive clinic visits were assessed for compliance with the drug regimen. 442 patients 34–96 years of age (mean age 71y, 51% women) who were non-compliant enrolled in the study 12–16 weeks later. Patients were excluded if they received supervised treatment in nursing homes, were deaf or mute, had dementia or other psychological disorders, or spoke non-Cantonese dialects or other languages. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Intervention: telephone intervention (n = 219) or no … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBMJ%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1136%252Fbmj.38905.447118.2F%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16916809%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=333/7567/522&atom=%2Febmed%2F12%2F1%2F22.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized triallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.423
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.059 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207