ReviewPharmacy (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Impact of Pharmacist-Led Interventions on Patient Outcomes in Gulf Cooperation Council Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland), 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPharmacist-led interventions in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries have been increasingly studied, yet their overall effectiveness across clinical and healthcare outcomes remains incompletely defined. To address this gap, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies published between 2000 and 2025 was conducted, following PRISMA 2020 and Cochrane standards.
methodsSearches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL identified 437 records, of which 20 studies met the inclusion criteria; 13 contributed meta-analyzable data as randomized controlled trials and seven as quasi-experimental studies.
resultsPooled random-effects estimates favored pharmacist-led care for HbA1c, fasting glucose, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, diastolic blood pressure, and medication knowledge, although these estimates carried substantial, largely unexplained heterogeneity and were rated as low to very low certainty under GRADE. The effects on systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, unplanned healthcare use, and antimicrobial utilization were favorable but not statistically significant. Quasi-experimental studies consistently demonstrated reductions in mortality and readmissions, though hospital and ICU length of stay remained variable. Risk of bias was judged as some concerns for randomized trials and moderate to serious for quasi-experimental studies, with substantial heterogeneity observed across blood pressure and lipid outcomes.
conclusionsOverall, pharmacist-led interventions in GCC settings were associated with improvements in glycemic control and LDL cholesterol, with additional benefits in mortality and readmissions, although the certainty of evidence was low to very low, owing to substantial heterogeneity and the predominance of non-randomized designs for the inpatient outcomes. These findings underscore the need for standardized intervention models and outcome measures.
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.