Sensitivity of Patient Outcomes to Pharmacist Interventions. Part I: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Diabetes Management
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pharmacists participate in managing diabetes therapy. Despite many reviews, few have quantified the impact of pharmacists' interventions. OBJECTIVES: To identify outcomes sensitive to pharmacists' interventions and quantify their impact through critical literature review. METHODS: All original research describing the impact of pharmacists' interventions in the management of diabetic pharmacotherapy was sought in International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Register, and Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature from inception through 2006. Two independent reviewers identified articles, compared results, and settled differences through consensus. The Downs-Black scale was used to assess quality. Data included intervention type, patient numbers, demographics, study characteristics, instruments used, data compared, and outcomes reported. A random-effects meta-analysis combined amenable results. RESULTS: Of 302 articles identified, 108 involved pharmacists' interventions; 36 addressed diabetes (14 medical clinics, 11 community pharmacies, 7 ambulatory care clinics, 4 hospital wards, 1 physician's office, 1 prison, and 3 in both medical clinics and community pharmacies; 1 did not describe its practice site). Research designs included randomized (n = 18) and nonrandomized (n = 9) controlled trials, pre- and postobservational cohorts (n = 2), retrospective cohort study (n = 1), chart reviews (n = 5), and database study (n = 1). Diabetes education (69%) and medication management (61%) were the most frequently used interventions. Mean +/- SD quality was 62 +/- 11% (fair). Fifty-one (69%) study results were sensitive. Meta-analysis of data from 2247 patients in 16 studies found a significant reduction in hemoglobin A1C (A1C) levels in the pharmacists' intervention group (1.00 +/- 0.28%; p < 0.001) but not in controls (0.28 +/- 0.29%; p = 0.335). Pharmacists' interventions further reduced A1C values 0.62 +/- 0.29% (p = 0.03) over controls. CONCLUSIONS: A1C is sensitive to pharmacists' interventions. Several potentially sensitive outcomes were identified, but too few studies were available for quantitative summaries. More 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it