ArticlePharmacy (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Outcomes of Structured Medication Reviews for Selected Patients in the English National Health Service.
Article in Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Structured medication reviews are now a common part of primary care practice, but little information is available on the outcomes of these reviews. We incentivised practices to submit a report via MS Forms supplying information from and the outcomes of the reviews of two cohorts of patients (those prescribed potentially addictive medication and those on problematic polypharmacy), as defined in the Primary Care Networks Contract Directed Enhanced Service. Submissions were analysed in Microsoft Excel. By the end of March 2025, 2858 reports were received from 48 of 55 eligible practices, reviewing a total of 34,531 prescribed items, with a mean of 12.1 items reviewed per structured medication review. Results indicated a preference amongst patients for the remote delivery of reviews, though changes to prescribed medication were more common following face-to-face contact. A total of 2706 changes to prescribed medication were made at a mean rate of 0.9 per structured medication review, with pain management being the most common British National Formulary category altered, though this may be because of the cohorts chosen. The most common change across all reviews was the discontinuation of a prescribed item. In reviews for the potentially addictive medication cohort, a reduction was proposed and accepted in 43.5% of cases. Additional interventions, which took place in 83.9% of reviews, were also captured.
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.