MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408462659 · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2025.1477729

Pharmacists delivering hypertension care services: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2025· review· en· W4408462659 on OpenAlexaff
Viktoria Gastens, Stefano Tancredi, Blanche Kiszio, Cinzia Del Giovane, Ross T. Tsuyuki, Gilles Paradis, Arnaud Chioléro, Valérie Santschi

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMedicineMeta-analysisSystematic reviewMEDLINEInternal medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Community-based models of care with the involvement of pharmacists and other nonphysician healthcare professionals can help improve blood pressure (BP) control. We aimed to synthesize the evidence of effectiveness of pharmacist interventions on BP among patients with hypertension. Methods We performed systematic searches to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of pharmacist interventions on BP among outpatients (latest search, March 2024). The effect on systolic and diastolic BP change or BP control were pooled using random effects model. Subgroup analysis for the types of pharmacist interventions and healthcare settings were performed. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021279751) and published in an open-access peer-reviewed journal. Results Out of 2,330 study records identified in 7 electronic databases, a total of 95 RCTs, with 31,168 participants (control 16,157, intervention 15,011), were included. The intervention was led by the pharmacist in 75% of the studies and in collaboration with other healthcare providers in 25%. Pharmacist interventions included patient education in 88%, feedback to healthcare providers in 49%, and patient reminders in 24% of the studies. Systolic and diastolic BP were reduced after pharmacist intervention by −5.3 mmHg (95% CI: −6.3 to −4.4; I 2 = 86%) and −2.3 mmHg (95% CI: −2.9 to −1.8; I 2 = 75%), respectively. The reduction of systolic BP tended to be larger if the intervention was collaborative, conducted in outpatient clinics, based on healthcare provider education, or through healthcare provider feedback. Analyses restricted to relatively large or high-quality studies yielded similar estimates, with lower between-studies heterogeneity. Conclusion Pharmacist care for patients with hypertension consistently improves BP across various settings and interventions. Pharmacist care is one key element of the solution to the global burden of hypertension and cardiovascular diseases. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021279751.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.1680.041
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.252 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations14
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207