ArticlePloS one2025
The impact of Evidence-Based Pharmacy on the quality of pharmaceutical care: A survey study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Applying Evidence-Based Pharmacy (EBPharm) principles is essential in pharmacy practice as it allows therapeutic decisions to be grounded in the best available scientific evidence. This approach enables pharmacists to provide patients with more effective and safer therapies, reducing the risk of adverse effects. This study assessed the EBPharm knowledge level among pharmacy professionals. Data were collected using a custom-designed online survey. The study also explored and defined the concept of EBPharm, offering insights into medical databases, types of scientific research, and evaluations of their quality and reliability. The study revealed widespread application of EBPharm principles among Polish pharmacy professionals, with significant associations between their use and factors such as professional experience (Chi² = 7.905518, p = 0.04801) and higher salaries. Respondents with formal EBPharm training demonstrated improved ability to evaluate scientific evidence (Chi² = 12.03125, p = 0.00244), while financial stability was linked to better systematic review skills (Chi² = 43.15693, p = 0.00000) and use of databases (Chi² = 63.14029, p = 0.00000). However, knowledge gaps remain, particularly among less experienced professionals, with only 30.35% of participants receiving formal training and 8.42% deeming it sufficient. Frequent use of informal sources by pharmacy technicians and limited familiarity with frameworks like PICO (Chi² = 37.65817, p = 0.00000) highlight the need for accessible, structured education. Targeted training, financial incentives, and greater reliance on reliable sources could enhance EBPharm integration, improving care quality and patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.