MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117823128 · doi:10.1345/aph.1m059

Interventions to Improve Medication Reconciliation in Primary Care

2009· review· en· W2117823128 on OpenAlexaff
Imaan Bayoumi, Michelle Howard, Anne Holbrook, Inge Schabort

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCINAHLMEDLINEPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectAmbulatoryAmbulatory careSystematic reviewFamily medicineEmergency medicineHealth careInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review all primary care intervention studies designed to implement medication reconciliation for effects on medication discrepancies, clinical outcomes, and patient knowledge of their medications. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE (1988-March 2008); Healthstar (1966-March 2008); CINAHL (1982-March 2008); EMBASE (1980-March 2008); Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Methodology Register, and Health Technology Assessments; and unpublished material. No language restrictions were applied. Search terms included medication reconciliation, medication errors, prescribing error, medication systems, adverse drug events, drug utilization review, medication list, medication record, and medications management. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA ABSTRACTION: Randomized controlled trials or before-and-after studies that examined the effect of various interventions on medication discrepancies either in ambulatory settings or at hospital discharge among community-dwelling adults were included. Two reviewers independently assessed studies to determine inclusion. Level of agreement between the reviewers was good, with unweighted Cohen's kappa of 0.71. Two of 3 independent reviewers abstracted data and evaluated validity from included studies. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four trials met the inclusion criteria. Two before-and-after studies (n = 275) in ambulatory care examining systematic medication reconciliation at each visit produced conflicting results. One study showed a reduction in the proportion of medication discrepancies from 88.5% to 49.1% (OR 0.13; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.21); the other showed no benefit. One randomized controlled trial and one before-and-after study (n = 202) evaluated pharmacist medication review at hospital discharge. Neither showed a benefit. Heterogeneity precluded pooling of studies. All included studies had significant design flaws. CONCLUSIONS: There is no good quality evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of medication reconciliation in the primary care setting. Further research is needed.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.387
GPT teacher head0.568
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations89
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PharmacotherapySame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207