ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2026
Development of a Core Outcome Measurement Set for studies of community pharmacist-led medication reviews in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy.
Article in International journal of clinical 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.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA Core Outcome Set (COS) can harmonize outcome reporting. For medication review (MR) studies targeting older, multi-morbid patients with polypharmacy, a COS with seven outcomes is available: Health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL), pain relief, overuse, underuse, potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), clinically significant drug-drug-interactions (DDIs), drug-related hospitalization. However, the lack of standardized outcome measurement is a barrier to its application. Thus, the next step is to operationalize each outcome by standardizing their measurement, resulting in a Core Outcome Measurement Set (COMS). As operationalization is setting-specific, a COMS was developed for MR studies in community pharmacies. Depending on the outcome type, the aims were to (1) identify outcome measurement instruments (OMIs), (2) define quality criteria for OMI selection, (3) refine outcome definitions, and/or (4) seek agreement on the appropriate measurement methods.
methodLiterature searches were conducted to identify OMIs. A group of 10 experts was assembled, with at least one expert contributing to each outcome. Throughout the study, they completed two online surveys and took part in two online workshops. Based on the type of outcome, different approaches were undertaken: (1) The experts selected the most appropriate OMIs for HRQoL and pain relief. (2) Recognizing national differences in OMIs for overuse, underuse and PIMs, experts established universal quality criteria for OMIs' selection to be applied for studies. (3) To operationalize DDIs and drug-related hospitalization, experts refined the definitions of what to measure. (4) For drug-related hospitalization experts sought to identify the best measurement method.
results(1) The experts selected the EQ-5D-5L as most appropriate OMI for HRQoL and upon numerical and visual analogue scales for pain relief. (2) Seven quality criteria were defined for the content of OMIs on overuse, underuse, and PIMs. No thresholds were established for validity and feasibility criteria. (3) DDIs to be measured were refined as those with a 'major' severity rating. Drug-related hospitalization was refined as unplanned overnight stays; (4) measured by patients' reporting.
conclusionBy translating the existing COS into a practical measurement framework, this COMS supports more standardized and comparable MR research.
trial registrationRegistered on 16 August 2023 at Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/57jfc ).
Indexed as
Identifiers
42747739What 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.