SynthesisInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2025
The effect of pharmacist intervention on medication adherence measured with proportion of days covered: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medication adherence and treatment gap in Sudanese children with epilepsy during armed conflict: a one-unit retrospective clinical audit.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Implementation and impact analysis of a clinical pharmacy ambulatory: a two-year experience.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
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
introductionPharmacist-led interventions improve medication outcomes, but existing evidence on adherence remains limited by heterogeneous tools and qualitative outcomes. The proportion of days covered (PDC) offers a quantifiable measure of adherence, with recommended threshold (PDC ≥ 80%) supporting evidence-based optimization of pharmacy services in chronic care management. However, studies using PDC to evaluate pharmacist interventions versus usual care show heterogeneity.
aimThis study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the effect of pharmacist-led interventions versus usual care using standardized PDC-based outcomes, and synthesize quantifiable evidence for pharmacy practice.
methodFive databases were searched from inception to March 2024. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomized studies evaluating pharmacist-led interventions versus usual care with adherence measured by PDC. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. RCTs were assessed using Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 and non-randomized studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models (I
resultsTwenty-nine studies were included in the analysis. Quality appraisal identified 54.5% of non-randomized studies as high quality, and the majority of RCTs were rated as low risk or some concerns. Pharmacist-led interventions significantly enhanced adherence versus usual care, with a pooled MD of 0.08 (95% CI 0.04-0.12) for mean PDC and an RR of 1.09 (95% CI 1.06-1.13) for adherence rate. Greater effects were observed for lipid-lowering (MD = 0.08, 0.04-0.11) and hypotensive medications (MD = 0.06, 0.03-0.10) than for antidiabetics (MD = 0.02, 0.01-0.03), for 6-month (MD = 0.12, 0.07-0.17) versus 12-month interventions (MD = 0.03, 0.01-0.06), and for telephone-based delivery (RR = 1.16, 1.06-1.28) versus multifaceted counterparts (RR = 1.12, 1.01-1.25). High heterogeneity was observed across pooled analyses. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of results.
conclusionPharmacist-led interventions enhance medication adherence in mean PDC and adherence rate. These consistent effects across different durations and delivery methods show their adaptability and scalability in clinical settings, highlighting their value in real-world pharmacy practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40775483What 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.