Sensitivity of Patient Outcomes to Pharmacist Interventions. Part I: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Diabetes Management
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.
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 | 0.132 | 0.309 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.064 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".