Dataset Information

Effect of medication reconciliation interventions on outcomes: A systematic overview of systematic reviews.

ABSTRACT: Purpose:To evaluate and summarize published evidence from systematic reviews examining medication reconciliation.

Methods:MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched for English-language systematic reviews published from January 2004 to March 2019. Reviewers independently extracted information and scored review quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. For reviews with AMSTAR scores above 7, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was applied to assess evidence quality, with evidence summarized and conclusions compared across reviews.

Results:Eleven reviews met the inclusion criteria, 5 of which used meta-analytic pooling. Most systematic reviews included primary studies of comprehensive bundled interventions that featured medication reconciliation as a central component. Reviews largely focused on transitions into and out of hospital settings. Five reviews focused exclusively on pharmacist-led interventions. Of the 5 reviews that considered all types of medication discrepancies, 3 reviews found very low-quality evidence that interventions reduced medication discrepancies. Neither of the 2 reviews that examined clinically significant medication discrepancies found any intervention effect. Of the 5 reviews that examined healthcare utilization outcomes, only 1 found any intervention effect, and that finding was based on low- to very low-quality evidence. Four reviews considered clinical outcomes, but none found any intervention effect.

Conclusion:An overview of systematic reviews of medication reconciliation interventions found 9 high-quality systematic reviews. A minority of those reviews' conclusions were consistent with medication reconciliation alone having a measurable impact, and such conclusions were almost all based on very low-quality evidence.

SUBMITTER: Anderson LJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6885740 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of medication reconciliation interventions on outcomes: A systematic overview of systematic reviews.

Anderson Laura J LJ Schnipper Jeff L JL Nuckols Teryl K TK Shane Rita R Le Michael M MM Robbins Karen K Pevnick Joshua M JM

American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 20191201 24

<h4>Purpose</h4>To evaluate and summarize published evidence from systematic reviews examining medication reconciliation.<h4>Methods</h4>MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched for English-language systematic reviews published from January 2004 to March 2019. Reviewers independently extracted information and scored review quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. For reviews with AMST ...[more]

PMID: 31789354

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo systematically summarize evidence from multiple systematic reviews (SRs) examining interventions addressing medication nonadherence and to discern differences in effectiveness by intervention, patient, and study characteristics.SummaryMEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched for papers published from January 2004 to February 2017. English-language SRs examining benefits of medication adherence interventions were eligible. Inclusion was limited to adult patients prescribed medication for 1 of the following disease conditions: diabetes and prediabetes, heart conditions, hypertension and prehypertension, stroke, and cognitive impairment. Non-disease-specific SRs that considered medication adherence interventions for older adults, adults with chronic illness, and adults with known medication adherence problems were also included. Two researchers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. They then extracted key variables from eligible SRs, reconciling discrepancies via discussion. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) was used to assess SRs; those with scores below 8 were excluded. Conclusions regarding intervention effectiveness were extracted. Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was applied to assess evidence quality.ResultsOf 390 SRs, 25 met the inclusion criteria and assessed adherence as a primary outcome. Intervention types most consistently found to be effective were dose simplification, patient education, electronic reminders to patients, and reduced patient cost sharing or incentives. Of 50 conclusions drawn by the SRs, the underlying evidence was low or very low quality for 45 SRs.ConclusionDespite an abundance of primary studies and despite only examining high-quality SRs, the vast majority of primary studies supporting SR authors' conclusions were of low or very low quality. Nonetheless, health system leaders seeking to improve medication adherence should prioritize interventions that have been studied and found to be effective at improving patient adherence, including dose simplification, education, reminders, and financial incentives.

Project description:PURPOSE:To systematically evaluate and summarize evidence across multiple systematic reviews (SRs) examining interventions addressing polypharmacy. SUMMARY:MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) were searched for SRs evaluating interventions addressing polypharmacy in adults published from January 2004 to February 2017. Two authors independently screened, appraised, and extracted information. SRs with Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scores below 8 were excluded. After extraction of relevant conclusions from each SR, evidence was summarized and conclusions compared. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess evidence quality. Six SRs met the inclusion criteria, 4 of which used meta-analytic pooling. Five SRs focused on older adults. Four were not restricted to any specific disease type, whereas 1 focused on proton pump inhibitors and another focused on patients with severe dementia. Care settings and measured outcomes varied widely. SRs examining the impact on patient-centered outcomes, including morbidity, mortality, patient satisfaction, and utilization, found inconsistent evidence regarding the benefit of polypharmacy interventions, but most concluded that interventions had either null or uncertain impact. Two SRs assessing medication appropriateness found very low-quality evidence of modest improvements with polypharmacy interventions. CONCLUSION:An overview of SRs of interventions to address polypharmacy found 6 recent and high-quality SRs, mostly focused on older adults, in which both process and outcome measures were used to evaluate interventions. Despite the low quality of evidence in the underlying primary studies, both SRs that assessed medication appropriateness found evidence that polypharmacy interventions improved it. However, there was no consistent evidence of any impact on downstream patient-centered outcomes such as healthcare utilization, morbidity, or mortality.

Project description:BackgroundNon-adherence negatively affects the efficacy, safety and costs of therapies. Non-adherence is a multifactorial problem. This systematic review (SR) of SRs (overview) aims to identify factors that can influence the adherence of adult patients with chronic physical diseases.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE and Embase on June 13, 2018. We included SRs on the factors that can influence adherence in adult patients taking oral medications for treating physical chronic diseases. Two reviewers independently selected studies according to pre-defined inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias with the ROBIS tool. Data were extracted in standardized tables previously piloted by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. We synthesized data in tables in a structured narrative manner.ResultsWe included 21 SRs on eight different conditions. We rated eight SRs to be at low risk of bias and 13 to be at high risk of bias. Although higher education, employment, higher financial status and marriage/partnership mostly showed a positive effect on adherence, the impact was unclear because of the high uncertainty of the underlying evidence. The evidence indicates that socioeconomic status and social support might have a positive impact on adherence and that belonging to an ethnic minority might have a negative impact on adherence. Therapy-related factors (e.g., intake regime) and disease-related factors (e.g., duration) mostly showed no impact on adherence. Analysis of gender showed inconsistent results. Age might have a concave relation to adherence, i.e., adherence is lowest in very young and very old people. Depression has a negative impact on adherence. Impacts of other mental and physical comorbidities were uncertain. Co-payments (any or higher) have a negative impact on adherence. In contrast, the impacts of medication costs and insurance status were uncertain.ConclusionThis overview analyses factors that might impact adherence to oral therapies in adult patients with physical chronic diseases. Our overview suggests that there is a social gradient in adherence. However, for most factors, the evidence was not conclusive due to the risk of bias, inconsistency or imprecision.

Project description:Periodontal disease is very common during pregnancy. Although it has been linked to adverse pregnancy outcomes, systematic reviews have reached discrepant conclusions on these links. Therefore, we conducted a systematic overview of systematic reviews studying the association between periodontal disease and adverse pregnancy outcomes. We searched 6 online databases up to November 2016 and hand-searched references and citations of eligible papers. Systematic reviews of studies comparing pregnancy outcomes among women with and without periodontal disease were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes were maternal mortality, preterm birth, and perinatal mortality. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias of individual systematic reviews. Findings are described in tabular and narrative form. Twenty-three systematic reviews (including between 3 and 45 studies) were included. None reported the association between periodontal disease and maternal or perinatal mortality. Systematic reviews with the lowest risk of bias consistently demonstrated positive associations between periodontal disease and preterm birth (relative risk, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 2.0; 17 studies, 6,741 participants), low birth weight (LBW; relative risk, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3 to 2.1; 10 studies, 5,693 participants), preeclampsia (odds ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.4; 15 studies, 5,111 participants), and preterm LBW (relative risk 3.4; 95% CI, 1.3 to 8.8; 4 studies, 2,263 participants). Based on these figures, estimated population-attributable fractions for periodontal disease were 5% to 38% for preterm birth, 6% to 41% for LBW, and 10% to 55% for preeclampsia. In terms of limitations, as several primary studies did not adjust for confounding, meta-analyses may have overestimated the strength of the associations under study. Due to substantial overlap in included primary studies, we could not aggregate results across reviews. Consistent evidence from systematic reviews with low risk of bias indicates that pregnant women with periodontal disease are at increased risk of developing preeclampsia and delivering a preterm and/or LBW baby (PROSPERO: CRD42015030132). Knowledge Transfer Statement: This study highlights that periodontal disease is an important risk factor for several common adverse pregnancy outcomes. Clinicians should be aware of this link to guide risk selection. Research is needed to develop novel preventive and treatment strategies.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral factors are associated with an increased risk of preterm birth (PTB); therefore, various interventions might have the potential to influence it. Due to the large number of interventions that address PTB, the objective of this overview is to summarise evidence from Cochrane reviews regarding the effects and safety of these different interventions.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Included reviews should be based on randomised controlled trials comparing antenatal non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions that directly or indirectly address PTB with placebo/no treatment or routine care in pregnant women at less than 37 completed weeks of gestation without signs of threatened preterm labour. We considered PTB at less than 37 completed weeks of gestation as the primary outcome.ResultsWe included 56 Cochrane systematic reviews. Three interventions increased PTB risk significantly. Twelve interventions led to a statistically significant lower incidence of PTBs. However, this reduction was mostly observed in defined at-risk subgroups of pregnant women. The remaining antenatal interventions failed to prove a significant effect on PTB?<?37 weeks, but some of them at least showed a positive effect in secondary outcomes (e.g., reduction in early PTBs). As an unintended result of this review, we identified 28 additional Cochrane reviews which intended to report on PTB?<?37 weeks, but were not able to find any RCTs reporting appropriate data.ConclusionsThe possible effects of a diverse range of interventions on PTB have been evaluated in Cochrane systematic reviews. Few interventions have been demonstrated to be effective and a small number have been found to be harmful. For around half of the interventions evaluated, the Cochrane review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to provide sound recommendations for clinical practice. No RCT evidence is available for a number of potentially relevant interventions.

Dataset Information

Effect of medication reconciliation interventions on outcomes: A systematic overview of systematic reviews.

Publications

Effect of medication reconciliation interventions on outcomes: A systematic overview of systematic reviews.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure