Pharmacist care in hypertension management: systematic review of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Hypertension management remains a major public health challenge in primary care. Recent hypertension guidelines recommend the involvement of pharmacists for team-based care management. Our objective was to systematically review the evidence of the impact of pharmacist care alone, or in collaboration, on blood pressure (BP) amongst hypertensive outpatients compared with usual care. One major focus was to assess the heterogeneity in the effects of these interventions to identify which ones work best in a given healthcare setting. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted for any article published up to 05.12.2022 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Trip databases. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of pharmacist interventions on BP among outpatients were included. Results were synthesized descriptively and, where appropriate, pooled across studies to perform meta-analysis. We have previously published the study protocol in BMJ Open and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021279751). Results 2048 study records were identified by electronic database searching. After removal of duplicates, 2006 were independently screened based on title and abstract by two authors (VG, ST), and 253 full texts were evaluated. A total of 90 studies with 33425 patients were included for data extraction. These studies were published between 1973 and 2022 and conducted in different regions (North America: n = 45, Europe: n = 17, other: n = 28). The preliminary random-effects summary estimate of the effect of pharmacist intervention is -6.6 mmHg (95% CI: -8.0 to -5.2) for systolic BP and -3.2 mmHG (95% CI: -4.1 to -2.2) for diastolic BP. Further results on the heterogeneity in the effects are in preparation. Conclusions This systematic review provides updated evidence on the effect of pharmacist intervention on hypertension management. Pharmacist-directed or -collaborative interventions improve hypertension management. Key messages • Pharmacist-directed or -collaborative interventions improve hypertension management. • This systematic review provides updated evidence on the effect of pharmacist interventions on hypertension management.
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 | 0.026 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".