5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Impact of pharmaceutical care for asthma patients on health‐related outcomes: An umbrella review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Recent systematic reviews suggest that pharmacists' interventions in asthma patients have a positive impact on health‐related outcomes. Nevertheless, the association is not well established, and the role of clinical pharmacists is poorly represented. The aim of this overview of systematic reviews is to identify published systematic reviews assessing the impact of pharmacists' interventions on health‐related outcomes measured in asthma patients. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to December 2022. Systematic reviews of all study designs and settings were included. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2. Two investigators performed study selection, quality assessment and data collection independently. Nine systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was rated as high in one, low in two, and critically low in six. Reviews included 51 primary studies reporting mainly quality of life, asthma control, lung capacity, and therapeutic adherence. Only four studies were carried out in a hospital setting and only two reviews stated the inclusion of severe asthma patients. The quality of the systematic reviews was generally low, and this was the major limitation of this overview of systematic reviews. However, solid evidence supports that pharmaceutical care improves health‐related outcomes in asthma patients.

          Abstract

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses literature search and study selection flowchart.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

          Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

            The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                olallamontero@iconcologia.net
                Journal
                Pharmacol Res Perspect
                Pharmacol Res Perspect
                10.1002/(ISSN)2052-1707
                PRP2
                Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2052-1707
                21 April 2024
                June 2024
                : 12
                : 3 ( doiID: 10.1002/prp2.v12.3 )
                : e1195
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Servicio de Farmacia, Institut Catalá d'Oncología Avinguda de la Gran Via de L'Hospitalet de Llobregat Barcelona Spain
                [ 2 ] Servicio de Farmacia Hospital Universitario Mutua de Terrassa Barcelona Spain
                [ 3 ] Unidad de Gestión Clínica Farmacia Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez Huelva Spain
                [ 4 ] Departamento de Farmacología, Facultad de Farmacia Universidad de Sevilla Sevilla Spain
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Olalla Montero Pérez, Institut Catalá d'Oncologia, Gran via de l'Hospitalet de Llobregat, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.

                Email: olallamontero@ 123456iconcologia.net

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2671-3354
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9490-4371
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9394-776X
                Article
                PRP21195 PRP2-2023-12-0461.R1
                10.1002/prp2.1195
                11033327
                38644566
                f4345015-050d-408b-96e6-239b32336a19
                © 2024 The Authors. Pharmacology Research & Perspectives published by British Pharmacological Society and American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                : 13 March 2024
                : 09 December 2023
                : 14 March 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 4, Pages: 12, Words: 5418
                Funding
                Funded by: Fundacion Andaluza de Farmacia Hospitalaria
                Categories
                Review
                Reviews
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                June 2024
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.4.0 mode:remove_FC converted:22.04.2024

                asthma,clinical pharmacist,outcome assessment, health care,pharmaceutical care,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article