SynthesisInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2026
Pharmacist-Driven Outcomes in Asthma and COPD: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes and Medication Adherence.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of pharmaceutical care in managing asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), focusing on clinical outcomes, medication adherence, and quality of life. Patients and Methods: Randomized controlled trials comparing asthma or COPD patients who received pharmaceutical care intervention on the basis of the original treatment and the control group who only received the original treatment were included. The main results include Asthma Control Test (ACT); COPD Assessment Test (CAT); modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale. Secondary outcomes were medication adherence; correct rate of inhaler technique; emergency room visit; hospitalization; Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ); Peak Expiratory Flow Rate (PEFR, L/min). All analyses used a random - effects model. Results: A total of 18 randomized controlled trials involving 4173 patients were included. The results showed that in the pharmaceutical care group, the mean correct inhalation technique rate (OR = 6.53, 95% CI: [3.19, 13.37], P < 0.001), medication adherence (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: [1.03, 2.03], P = 0.031), and the number of patients with better asthma control as indicated by ACT results (OR = 2.51, 95% CI: [2.51, 4.35], P < 0.01) were significantly better than those in the control group. The emergency room visit rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI: [0.29, 0.67], P < 0.001) and hospital admissions rate (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: [0.19, 0.39], P < 0.001) were significantly lower. The PEFR of patients was better (SMD = 0.37, 95% CI: [0.09, 0.6], P < 0.01). However, no significant changes were observed in CAT, AQLQ, or mMRC. Conclusion: Pharmacists' interventions exert a positive effect on asthma and COPD management outcomes, though improved research design and quality are still needed.
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.