Victor Johan Bernard Huiskes, David Marinus Burger, Cornelia Helena Maria van den Ende, Bartholomeus Johannes Fredericus van den Bemt
{"title":"Effectiveness of medication review: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Victor Johan Bernard Huiskes, David Marinus Burger, Cornelia Helena Maria van den Ende, Bartholomeus Johannes Fredericus van den Bemt","doi":"10.1186/s12875-016-0577-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medication review is often recommended to optimize medication use. In clinical practice it is mostly operationalized as an intervention without co-interventions during a short term intervention period. However, most systematic reviews also included co-interventions and prolonged medication optimization interventions. Furthermore, most systematic reviews focused on specific patient groups (e.g. polypharmacy, elderly, hospitalized) and/or on specific outcome measures (e.g. hospital admissions and mortality). Therefore, the objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of medication review as an isolated short-term intervention, irrespective of the patient population and the outcome measures used.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science from their inception through September 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with medication review as isolated short term intervention (<3 months) were included. There were no restrictions with regard to patient characteristics and outcome measures. One reviewer extracted and a second checked data. The risk of bias of studies was evaluated independently by two reviewers. A best evidence synthesis was conducted for every outcome measure used in more than one trial. In case of binary variables a meta-analysis was performed in addition to the best evidence synthesis, to quantify the effect.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-one RCTs were included in this systematic review (55% low risk of bias). A best evidence synthesis was conducted for 22 outcome measures. No effect of medication review was found on clinical outcomes (mortality, hospital admissions/healthcare use, the number of patients falling, physical and cognitive functioning), except a decrease in the number of falls per patient. However, in a sensitivity analysis using a more stringent threshold for risk of bias, the conclusion for the effect on the number of falls changed to inconclusive. Furthermore no effect was found on quality of life and evidence was inconclusive about the effect on economical outcome measures. However, an effect was found on most drug-related problems: medication review resulted in a decrease in the number of drug-related problems, more changes in medication, more drugs with dosage decrease and a greater decrease or smaller increase of the number of drugs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>An isolated medication review during a short term intervention period has an effect on most drug-related outcomes, minimal effect on clinical outcomes and no effect on quality of life. No conclusion can be drawn about the effect on economical outcome measures. Therefore, it should be considered to stop performing cross-sectional medication reviews as standard care.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":" ","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5240219/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"88","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-016-0577-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Medication review is often recommended to optimize medication use. In clinical practice it is mostly operationalized as an intervention without co-interventions during a short term intervention period. However, most systematic reviews also included co-interventions and prolonged medication optimization interventions. Furthermore, most systematic reviews focused on specific patient groups (e.g. polypharmacy, elderly, hospitalized) and/or on specific outcome measures (e.g. hospital admissions and mortality). Therefore, the objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of medication review as an isolated short-term intervention, irrespective of the patient population and the outcome measures used.
Methods: A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science from their inception through September 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with medication review as isolated short term intervention (<3 months) were included. There were no restrictions with regard to patient characteristics and outcome measures. One reviewer extracted and a second checked data. The risk of bias of studies was evaluated independently by two reviewers. A best evidence synthesis was conducted for every outcome measure used in more than one trial. In case of binary variables a meta-analysis was performed in addition to the best evidence synthesis, to quantify the effect.
Results: Thirty-one RCTs were included in this systematic review (55% low risk of bias). A best evidence synthesis was conducted for 22 outcome measures. No effect of medication review was found on clinical outcomes (mortality, hospital admissions/healthcare use, the number of patients falling, physical and cognitive functioning), except a decrease in the number of falls per patient. However, in a sensitivity analysis using a more stringent threshold for risk of bias, the conclusion for the effect on the number of falls changed to inconclusive. Furthermore no effect was found on quality of life and evidence was inconclusive about the effect on economical outcome measures. However, an effect was found on most drug-related problems: medication review resulted in a decrease in the number of drug-related problems, more changes in medication, more drugs with dosage decrease and a greater decrease or smaller increase of the number of drugs.
Conclusions: An isolated medication review during a short term intervention period has an effect on most drug-related outcomes, minimal effect on clinical outcomes and no effect on quality of life. No conclusion can be drawn about the effect on economical outcome measures. Therefore, it should be considered to stop performing cross-sectional medication reviews as standard care.
背景:经常建议进行药物审查以优化药物使用。在临床实践中,在短期干预期间,它主要是作为一种没有联合干预的干预来实施的。然而,大多数系统评价也包括联合干预和延长药物优化干预。此外,大多数系统评价侧重于特定的患者群体(如综合用药、老年人、住院患者)和/或具体的结果衡量指标(如住院人数和死亡率)。因此,本研究的目的是评估药物审查作为一种孤立的短期干预措施的有效性,而不考虑患者群体和使用的结果测量。方法:检索MEDLINE、EMBASE和Web of Science自建站至2015年9月的文献。随机对照试验(rct)将药物评价作为孤立的短期干预(结果:本系统评价纳入31项随机对照试验(55%低偏倚风险)。对22项结果测量进行了最佳证据综合。没有发现药物审查对临床结果(死亡率、住院/医疗保健使用、跌倒的患者数量、身体和认知功能)的影响,除了每个患者跌倒的次数减少。然而,在使用更严格的偏倚风险阈值的敏感性分析中,对跌倒次数的影响的结论变为不确定。此外,没有发现对生活质量的影响,证据也不确定对经济结果测量的影响。然而,在大多数药物相关问题上发现了效果:用药回顾导致药物相关问题数量减少,用药变化更多,剂量减少的药物更多,药物数量减少或增加较小。结论:在短期干预期间的单独用药回顾对大多数药物相关结局有影响,对临床结局的影响很小,对生活质量没有影响。对经济产出指标的影响尚无定论。因此,应考虑停止将横断面药物评价作为标准治疗。
期刊介绍:
ACS Applied Electronic Materials is an interdisciplinary journal publishing original research covering all aspects of electronic materials. The journal is devoted to reports of new and original experimental and theoretical research of an applied nature that integrate knowledge in the areas of materials science, engineering, optics, physics, and chemistry into important applications of electronic materials. Sample research topics that span the journal's scope are inorganic, organic, ionic and polymeric materials with properties that include conducting, semiconducting, superconducting, insulating, dielectric, magnetic, optoelectronic, piezoelectric, ferroelectric and thermoelectric.
Indexed/Abstracted:
Web of Science SCIE
Scopus
CAS
INSPEC
Portico