An analysis of quality of systematic reviews on pharmacist health interventions

被引:0
作者
Ana Carolina Melchiors
Cassyano Januário Correr
Rafael Venson
Roberto Pontarolo
机构
[1] Federal University of Espírito Santo,Health Science Department, Pharmacy Practice Research Group
[2] University Center North of Espírito Santo,Pharmacy Department
[3] Federal University of Espírito Santo,Pharmacy Department, Pharmacy Practice Research Group
[4] Federal University of Paraná,Department of Pharmacy
[5] Federal University of Paraná,undefined
来源
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy | 2012年 / 34卷
关键词
Meta-analysis; Methodological quality; Pharmacist; Pharmacist interventions; Quality assessment; Pharmaceutical care; Pharmaceutical services; Systematic reviews;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background In the past 20 years, many studies have evaluated the impact of pharmaceutical practices on clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes. However, few studies have critically analysed the primary studies and published reviews regarding pharmaceutical practices. Aim of the Review The aim of this review is to assess the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis on pharmacist health interventions published from 1990 to 2009. Method The data sources used were MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences, Scientific Electronic Library Online, and Scopus. Studies in which interventions were done by a pharmacist or in which the pharmacist was a health team member were included. There were no restrictions based on the type of intervention, country or languages. The data extracted by two independent reviewers were the following: publication journal, language, publication year, search strategy, study design, quality assessment of the included studies, disease, study settings, intervention description, and outcome measures. The methodological quality of systematic reviews was accessed with AMSTAR. Results A total of 151 articles were found from which 31 were included. An increase in the number of publications occurred after 2005. Nineteen reviews evaluated the quality of primary studies, and 6 of these reviews performed meta-analyses. The methodological quality of reviews was considered to be moderate (52.8 ± 22.3% for reviewer #1 and 54.8 ± 16.5% for reviewer #2); of the 31 included reviews, 7, 18 and 6 reviews had high, moderate and poor quality, respectively. Conclusion The quality of published reviews varies from moderate to poor. Improvements in the study design can be achieved by following specific recommendations, such as clearly describing the methods, performing the data extraction in duplicate, researching at least two databases, listing the included and excluded studies, employing tables with the main studies data and evaluating and reporting the scientific quality of the included articles.
引用
收藏
页码:32 / 42
页数:10
相关论文
共 161 条
  • [1] Hepler CD(1990)Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care Am J Hosp Pharm 47 533-543
  • [2] Strand LM(1998)Critical analysis of the pharmaceutical care research literature Ann Pharmacother 32 17-26
  • [3] Kennie NR(2005)Current research status in pharmaceutical care Farm Hosp 29 335-342
  • [4] Schuster BG(2005)Pharmaceutical care services: a systematic review of published studies, 1990 to 2003, examining effectiveness in improving patient outcomes Int J Pharm Pract 13 53-70
  • [5] Einarson TR(1991)Validation of an index of the quality of review articles J Clin Epidemiol 44 1271-1278
  • [6] Rangel Mayoral JF(1991)Agreement among reviewers of review articles J Clin Epidemiol 44 91-98
  • [7] Luis Fernandez J(1987)Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials N Engl J Med 316 450-455
  • [8] Liso Rubio FJ(2007)Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews BMC Med Res Methodol 7 10-1020
  • [9] Roughead EE(2009)AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews J Clin Epidemiol 62 1013-162
  • [10] Semple SJ(2006)Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 8. Synthesis and presentation of evidence Health Res Policy Syst 4 20-40