Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42668522›Full record

ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2026

In defence of the drug, two hearts, one profession: Reintegrating medicines expertise and patient-centred care in pharmacy's professional identity.

Neal M Davies

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Neal M DaviesFaculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6M 0L2, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For more than three decades, pharmacy has narrated its evolution as a movement away from the product and toward the patient. The pharmaceutical care era ushered in by Hepler and Strand in 1990 framed dispensing and product expertise as a chrysalis the profession needed to shed in order to mature. That framing has been useful, but it has also been misread, and the misreading has now been institutionalised. Some accreditation councils, regulatory and licensing bodies, and advocacy bodies have positioned the profession as one moving away from a so-called "product centric" past. The thesis of this commentary is otherwise. Pharmacy has never had a single heart; it has always had two, one beating for the drug and the other for the patient, and they have always beaten in the same chest, for four centuries and more. The pharmacist's claim to a place at the patient's bedside rests entirely on what the pharmacist knows about the molecule: medicinal chemistry, pharmaceutics, compounding, biopharmaceutics, pharmacokinetics, pharmacogenomics, radiopharmacy, pharmacognosy and now pharmaceutical artificial intelligence. The argument here is not nostalgic but expansive. Embrace them all. Without the drug, the diagnosis is a verdict, not a treatment; and without the pharmacist, no drug appears.

Indexed as

Medicines expertisePatient-centred carePharmaceutical carePharmaceutical sciencesPharmacy educationProfessional identity

Identifiers

PMID42668522
PMCPMC13524632

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.