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

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Olalla Montero Pérez, Fernando Salazar González, Ernesto Sánchez Gómez, Concepción Pérez Guerrero
{"title":"Impact of pharmaceutical care for asthma patients on health‐related outcomes: An umbrella review","authors":"Olalla Montero Pérez, Fernando Salazar González, Ernesto Sánchez Gómez, Concepción Pérez Guerrero","doi":"10.1002/prp2.1195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":19948,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacology Research & Perspectives","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacology Research & Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/prp2.1195","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.
哮喘患者的药物治疗对健康相关结果的影响:综述
摘要 近期的系统综述表明,药剂师对哮喘患者的干预对健康相关结果有积极影响。然而,这种关联尚未得到充分证实,临床药剂师的作用也鲜有体现。本系统综述旨在确定已发表的系统综述,评估药剂师干预对哮喘患者健康相关结果的影响。我们检索了 PubMed、Embase、Scopus 和 Cochrane 图书馆从开始到 2022 年 12 月的所有文献。所有研究设计和研究环境的系统综述均被纳入。方法学质量采用 AMSTAR 2 进行评估。两名研究人员独立完成了研究选择、质量评估和数据收集工作。九篇系统综述符合纳入标准。方法学质量被评为高的有 1 篇,低的有 2 篇,极低的有 6 篇。综述包括 51 项主要报告生活质量、哮喘控制、肺活量和治疗依从性的主要研究。只有四项研究是在医院环境中进行的,只有两篇综述说明纳入了重症哮喘患者。系统综述的质量普遍较低,这也是本系统综述的主要局限性。不过,有确凿证据表明,药物治疗可改善哮喘患者的健康相关结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
Pharmacology Research & Perspectives Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-General Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.80%
发文量
120
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: PR&P is jointly published by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (ASPET), the British Pharmacological Society (BPS), and Wiley. PR&P is a bi-monthly open access journal that publishes a range of article types, including: target validation (preclinical papers that show a hypothesis is incorrect or papers on drugs that have failed in early clinical development); drug discovery reviews (strategy, hypotheses, and data resulting in a successful therapeutic drug); frontiers in translational medicine (drug and target validation for an unmet therapeutic need); pharmacological hypotheses (reviews that are oriented to inform a novel hypothesis); and replication studies (work that refutes key findings [failed replication] and work that validates key findings). PR&P publishes papers submitted directly to the journal and those referred from the journals of ASPET and the BPS
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信