ReviewBMC primary care2025
How do pharmacists navigate clinical uncertainty when reviewing polypharmacy? A critical literature review.
Review in BMC primary care, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical pharmacists are the principal profession reviewing polypharmacy in English general practice. Pharmacists reviewing polypharmacy can encounter clinical uncertainty, thus affecting decision-making and the utility of medication reviews. Understanding factors and interventions that mitigate clinical uncertainty could improve polypharmacy medication reviews. This review's objective was to explore how primary care clinical pharmacist decision-making can be improved when reviewing polypharmacy in the context of clinical uncertainty.
methodsA critical literature review was undertaken in key databases. Included articles explored polypharmacy, clinical uncertainty and medication review by primary care clinical pharmacists. Exclusion criteria included community pharmacy and monotherapy management. Quality assurance was conducted using Lincoln and Guba's evaluative criteria. Contents of included papers were thematically analysed and conceptual models produced.
results647 titles/abstracts were screened and 11 full-text articles included, encompassing focus group, interview, ethnography and intervention-development studies. Pharmacists expressed feelings of self-competence occurring alongside apprehension when reviewing polypharmacy. Relationships with patients, including shared decision-making, continuity of care and engagement can support medication reviews. Decision-making is impacted by environmental factors, with poor working relationships within organisations, working across several sites and time pressures hindering deprescribing. The absence of clinical and deprescribing guidelines for multimorbid patients contributes to clinical uncertainty. Multidisciplinary working mitigates clinical uncertainty and training interventions can support pharmacists to proactively deprescribe.
conclusionPharmacist, patient and environmental factors can influence pharmacists' decision-making when experiencing clinical uncertainty during polypharmacy review. Clinical education, peer support and multidisciplinary working have roles in reducing clinical uncertainty and therefore optimising pharmacists' reviews of polypharmacy.
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.