MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407843276 · doi:10.2196/60728

Optimizing the Pharmacotherapy of Vascular Surgery Patients at Hospital Admission and Discharge (PHAROS): Protocol for a Quasi-Experimental Clinical Uncontrolled Trial

2025· article· en· W4407843276 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Slávka Porubcová, Kristína Lajtmanová, Kristina Szmicsekova, Veronika Slezakova, Jan Tomka, Tomáš Tesař

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintMedicineProtocol (science)PharmacotherapyClinical trialEmergency medicineAlternative medicineInternal medicineComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patient safety is essential in pharmacotherapy, especially in surgical contexts, due to the elevated risk of drug-related complications. Vascular surgery patients are particularly susceptible because of their complex medication needs and underlying health conditions. Improved safety monitoring and targeted pharmaceutical care in collaboration with physicians are crucial to minimize these risks and enhance patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This protocol evaluates whether structured pharmaceutical care interventions-including medication reconciliation, medication review, and patient education-can reduce the prevalence of drug-related problems at hospital admission and discharge in vascular surgery patients. METHODS: This prospective, uncontrolled study was conducted over 1 year in the Vascular Surgery Department at the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases in Bratislava, Slovakia. The study included adult patients with carotid artery disease or lower extremity artery disease who were on 3 or more medications, with an estimated sample size of approximately 100 patients. The primary intervention involved 3 key changes in practice: medication reconciliation at both admission and discharge, where hospital pharmacists review and verify medication lists; medication review to identify and address drug-related problems; and patient education at discharge. Pharmacist-proposed interventions were documented and communicated to the physician for treatment adjustments. The primary outcome is the change in drug-related problem prevalence from hospital admission to discharge. Secondary outcomes include the acceptance rate of pharmacist recommendations and patient understanding of pharmacotherapy. Data collection involved documenting the number, type, and frequency of drug-related problems; the anatomical therapeutic chemical classification of medications associated with drug-related problems; and patients' social, demographic, and clinical characteristics, with a focus on factors related to drug-related problems, comorbidities, and medication use. Data analysis will use the paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare the prevalence of drug-related problems and medication counts between admission and discharge. Continuous variables will be presented as means (SDs), while categorical variables will be reported as counts and percentages. Patient understanding of pharmacotherapy will be evaluated using a 3-point scale, classifying understanding as good (2-3 points per medication), modest (1-2 points), or poor (0-1 point). RESULTS: Recruitment began in September 2021 and concluded in August 2022. Data collection occurred continuously during hospital stays, capturing demographics, comorbidities, pharmacotherapy, and drug-related problems at admission and discharge. Important milestones included the initial data review, which began in August 2023 to assess recruitment and data quality, including an early evaluation of drug-related problems. The primary analysis was completed in January 2024, focusing on the reduction in drug-related problems, intervention acceptance, and patient understanding. The final report was to be prepared by June 2024, disseminating the findings on pharmacist-led intervention impacts. CONCLUSIONS: This study should demonstrate that pharmacist-led interventions in collaboration with physicians can reduce pharmacotherapy risks and optimize medicine management for patient safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04930302; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04930302. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/60728.

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.010

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 head0.397
GPT teacher head0.647
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes→French-language works237,207→