MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3032788696 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000020758

Content and impact of pharmacy services for patients with Parkinson's disease

2020· review· en· W3032788696 on OpenAlexaff
Zhan‐Miao Yi, Tingting Li, Qiyu Tang, Yuan Zhang, Sarah Willis

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineParkinson's diseasePharmacyDiseasePhysical therapyFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Medicines optimisation is important for the management of Parkinson's disease (PD). As many patients with PD have other long-term conditions, treatment is complex and risk of adverse events for these patients is high. OBJECTIVE: To explore the role of pharmacists and impact of pharmacy interventions for PD patients. METHODS: We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Chinese databases Sinomed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure to identify studies reporting pharmacist interventions and pharmacy services for PD patients using a predefined search strategy. The search period was from inception to March 2019. We also manually searched the reference list of included studies and ClinicalTrials.gov. We conducted meta-analyses to synthesize the evidence quantitatively. RESULTS: A total of 1607 studies were identified by applying the search criteria. After screening, 19 cross-sectional and case-controlled studies with 1458 PD patients from 9 countries were included. Pharmacist interventions for PD patients most commonly related to adverse drug reactions (ADRs) (13 studies), adherence assessment (12 studies), medication review (12 studies), identification of drug interactions (11 studies), monitoring response to medication therapy (11 studies), identification of inappropriate medication (11 studies), and patient education (10 studies). Most pharmacy services were provided in outpatient settings (13 studies). Reported impact measures included adherence (8 studies), quality of life (7 studies), and identification of drug-related problems (6 studies) such as ADRs (393 times out of 1760 times, 22.33%, 6 studies), inappropriate drug choice (349 times, 19.83%, 6 studies), inappropriate dosage (335 times, 19.03%, 6 studies), inappropriate drug use (257 times, 14.60%, 3 studies) and drug-drug interactions (146 times, 8.3%, 4 studies). Pooled results from 3 studies indicated no statistically significant impact of pharmacy services on all subscales of PD Questionnaire-39. CONCLUSION: ADRs were the most widely reported drug-related problems for PD patients; pharmacy services may have a role to play in medication adherence but were not found to impact on quality of life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207