Table 1. Description of the systematic reviews’ aim; primary studies’ countries, practice setting, study design and population; and AMSTAR score for quality assessment of systematic reviews followed or not by meta-analyzes.
| Reference | Aim | Primary studies countries | Practice setting | Study design | Population | AMSTAR score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [37] | To evaluate systematically and to quantify the effects of medication review by pharmacists on substantive clinical and qualitative outcomes for older people across all care settings | Australia, Canada, Northern Ireland, Singapore, United Kingdom, and United States | Hospital, primary care or clinic, pharmacy, patient’s home, and nursing home | Randomized controlled trial | Older patients (mean age > 60 years) with a range of diseases (more than one diagnostic category) | 4 |
| [38] | To identify, assess, and summarize the literature investigating the effect of pharmacist-led medication reviews in hospitalized patients | Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, India, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Northern Ireland, Norway, Oman, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States | Hospital setting | Descriptive study and controlled study | Hospitalized patients | 8 |
| [39] | To investigate how the extent of collaboration between the GP and the pharmacist impacts on the implementation of recommendations arising from medication review | Australia, Canada, Netherlands, New Zealand, United States, and United Kingdom | Community pharmacy, interdisciplinary health clinic, health centre ambulatory clinic, university, general practice, dispensing general practice, and family practice | Randomized clinical trial | Home-dwelling patients (≥ 70 years) in primary care that was not recently discharged (<1 month) | 2 |
| [40] | To evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacist-led medication review in chronic pain management | Canada, Germany, United Kingdom, and United States | University pain clinic, general practice, and community pharmacy | Randomized controlled trial and cluster randomized controlled trial | Adult patients with chronic pain | 6 |
| [41] | To examine the impact of fee-for-service pharmacist-led medication review on patient outcomes and quantify this according to the type of review undertaken | Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and United States | Pharmacy, patients’ home, general practice clinic/surgery, and community health centre | Randomized and non-randomized controlled trial | Adult patients | 5 |
| [42] | To summarize the available evidence on the effect of pharmacist-led medication review initiated early within a patient’s hospital course on the length of hospital stay, and on 3-month mortality, hospital readmissions and emergency department revisits based on observed data | Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Northern Ireland, and Sweden | Hospital ward | Randomized controlled trial and controlled clinical trial | Adult patients (>18 years) who presented to an acute care hospital for an unexpected illness | 8 |
| [43] | To systematically review the processes and outcomes of clinical medication review in community-settings in Australia | Australia | Community setting | Controlled trial, observational study, uncontrolled study, qualitative study, and survey study | NR | 6 |
| [44] | To provide a timely evaluation of the evidence base for pharmacist-provided medication review in the elderly compared with usual care | Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Portugal, Republic of Ireland, Scotland, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States | Hospital outpatient clinic, community pharmacy, primary care (such as physician offices), patient’s home, and mixed setting (typically with the first intervention carried out at the hospital, and follow-up conducted by telephone or home visits) | Randomized controlled trial | Community dwelling patients with a mean or median age of at least 65 years | 5 |
| [45] | To evaluate the impact of in-hospital pharmacist-led medication reviews on clinical outcomes at different time points | Australia, Belgium, China, Denmark, Ireland, Israel, Northern Ireland, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States | Hospital and care units | Randomized controlled trial | Adult or pediatric patients | 9 |
| [46] | To assess the impact of medication reviews in aged care facilities, with additional focus on the types of medication reviews (prescription and/or clinical medication reviews) in a single care setting (aged care homes) using a specific study design (randomized controlled trials and prospective studies) | Australia, Belgium, Netherlands, North Ireland, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and United States | Aged care facilities | Randomized controlled trial, nonrandomized controlled trial, and observational study (longitudinal and pre and post intervention) | Older people (mean age of subjects > 60 years) | 5 |
| [47] | To specifically evaluate the impact of pharmacist delivered community-based services to optimize the use of medications for mental illness | Australia, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States | Domiciliary and residential aged care setting | Controlled trials, randomized controlled trials, and cluster randomized controlled trials | Patients with mental illness | 4 |
| [48] | To provide descriptions of existing remuneration models for pharmacist clinical care services and to summarize the existing evaluations of economic, clinical, and humanistic outcome studies of the remuneration models | Australia | NR | Multistep assessment interviews, focus research group, and mail survey | Stakeholders, pharmacists, consumers and facilitators | 3 |
| [49] | To evaluate the evidence pertaining to the impact of medication reviews and/or educational interventions on psychotropic drug use in long-term care facilities | Australia, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States | Long-term care facility | Randomized and non-randomized controlled trial | Elderly residents (≥ 65 years) who use antipsychotic or hypnotic drugs | 4 |
| [50] | To identify, assess, and summarize available scientific evidence about the effect of interventions that could be used to reduce potentially inappropriate use of drugs in nursing homes | Australia, Sweden, and United Kingdom * | Nursing home | Randomized controlled trial | Elderly patients | 5 |
| [51] | To interpret the results of studies that have evaluated any type of strategy to improve prescribing in care homes | Australia and United Kingdom | Care homes settings (nursing homes, residential homes, and mixed homes) | Randomized controlled study, cluster randomized controlled study, and controlled before-and-after study | Care home patients or older people | 4 |
| [52] | To introduce the concept of safe medication use to both patients and clinicians by presenting multifaceted pharmaceutical concerns in the prevention of medication-related falls among patients in all settings (community dwelling, nursing home, and hospital) | NR | Community dwelling, nursing home, and hospital | Randomized controlled trials** | Elderly patients | 2 |
| [53] | To identify and analyse full economic evaluation studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of PPS in community setting in Europe and to summarize their findings | Spain and United Kingdom | Community setting | Randomized controlled trial and cluster randomized controlled trial | Elderly and patients with chronic pain | 2 |
Abbreviations:
*Does not report the country of all primary studies;
**Does not report the study design of all primary studies;
AMSTAR—A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews; GP—General practitioner; NR—Not reported.