Systematic Reviews of Pharmacy Practice Research: Methodologic Issues in Searching, Evaluating, Interpreting, and Disseminating Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there has been a large number of trials on pharmacist care, often demonstrating clinically significant benefits, the trials generally have not changed practice or healthcare policy. What is needed are focused evidence syntheses, such as a systematic review. A systematic review is defined as a summary that addresses a focused clinical question, using methods to reduce the likelihood of bias. These reviews, which are the highest level of evidence, can help to impact policy by bringing together results of various trials. However, systematic reviews of practice research pose some unique methodologic challenges, including issues with searching, interpreting, and evaluating the available research. Well-conducted systematic reviews of pharmacist interventions could go a long way toward changing pharmacy practice and healthcare policy to recognize the important impact that pharmacists could have in the healthcare system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.753 | 0.891 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.044 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".