SynthesisInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2026
Pharmacist-Led Integrated Management for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and suboptimal medication management contributes to exacerbations and preventable healthcare utilization. Pharmacist-led integrated care has the potential to improve medication use and clinical outcomes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of pharmacist-led interventions in COPD. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted and reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from inception until June 23, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of pharmaceutical care on clinical outcomes in COPD patients were included. A random-effects model was used to estimate pooled relative risks (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Results: A total of 11 randomized controlled trials involving 2313 participants were included. Pharmacist-led interventions were associated with a lower risk of exacerbation-related hospital admissions (RR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.33-0.55). Improvements in medication adherence and higher smoking cessation rates were also observed. Improvements in health-related quality of life were reported; however, substantial heterogeneity was present. In contrast, effects on COPD Assessment Test scores and objective disease measures, including lung function, were non-significant. Overall study quality was variable, with many trials being small and at high risk of bias. Conclusion: Pharmacist-led interventions in COPD may improve selected medication-related and patient-centered outcomes; however, the available evidence is heterogeneous and limited by study quality and inconsistent effects across outcomes. These findings should be interpreted cautiously, and well-designed, adequately powered trials with standardized outcomes are needed before robust conclusions regarding clinical effectiveness can be drawn.
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.