MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123895995 · doi:10.1345/aph.1k311

Hypertenion: Sensitivity of Patient Outcomes to Pharmacist Interventions. Part II: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Hypertension Management

2007· review· en· W2123895995 on OpenAlexaff
M. Machado, Jana Bajcar, Giovanni Carvalho Guzzo, Thomas R. Einarson

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePharmacistMeta-analysisPsychological interventionIntensive care medicineMEDLINEFamily medicineInternal medicinePharmacyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a major health concern worldwide due to its deleterious impact. Few studies have quantitatively assessed pharmacists' interventions in hypertensive patients. OBJECTIVES: To identify and quantify outcomes sensitive to pharmacists' interventions. METHODS: International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, and EMBASE were searched from inception through December 2006. Two independent reviewers identified articles; results were compared and resolved through consensus. Data extracted included intervention type, patient numbers, demographics, study characteristics, instruments used, data compared, and outcomes reported. A random effects meta-analysis was used to combine data. Study quality was assessed using the Downs-Black scale. RESULTS: Of 203 potential articles identified, 98 were selected and their abstracts were read. Nine of these were reviewed full-text and 19 more were identified from references, resulting in a total of 28 articles. Research designs included 18 randomized controlled trials, 6 single-arm clinical trials, 3 nonrandomized comparative trials, and 1 database study. Average quality score was 66% +/- 12% (fair). Medication management (82%) and hypertension education (68%) were the interventions most used. Thirty-nine study results (57% of all outcomes evaluated) were sensitive to pharmacists' interventions. Meta-analysis of 2246 patients in 13 studies found that pharmacists' interventions significantly reduced systolic blood pressure (10.7 +/- 11.6 mm Hg; p = 0.002), while controls remained unchanged (3.2 +/- 12.1 mm Hg; p = 0.361). Pharmacists' interventions further reduced systolic blood pressure (6.9 +/- 12.1 mm Hg; p = 0.047) over controls. Nonsensitive results included further reduction in diastolic blood pressure (3.6 +/- 3.7 mm Hg; p = 0.06), quality of life (1 of 8 significant), and adherence (5 of 13 significant). CONCLUSIONS: Systolic blood pressure is sensitive to pharmacists' interventions. Other outcomes may also be sensitive; however, more high-quality studies are needed for a comprehensive quantitative assessment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.401
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.089 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations377
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PharmacotherapySame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207