Zermansky 2001.

Study characteristics
Methods	RT of clinical medication review by a pharmacist against normal general practice review Length of study: 12 months (study conducted: June 1999‐June 2000)
Participants	Participants from general practices 1188 participants aged ≥ 65 or over who were receiving at least 1 repeat prescription and living in the community. Age: mean (SD) intervention, 74 (6.6) control, 73 (6.4) Sex female n (%): intervention 339 (56%), control 325 (56%) Country: UK Comorbidity: not reported Sociodemographics: not reported Ethnicity: not reported
Interventions	1 intervention and 1 control; 601 participants in the intervention and 580 participants in the control group. Intervention group: participants were invited to a consultation at which the pharmacist reviewed their medical conditions and current treatment according to a specific algorithm which includes history taking and data gathering, evaluation and implementation stages. Control group: participants in the control group continued to receive normal care from their GP and primary healthcare staff. Participants were recalled for review of treatment by the GP according to normal custom in the practice.
Outcomes	Hospital admission and mortality
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation was done by a computer.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Practice based allocation.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	This would be impossible.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Some participants did not complete the study and were reported in the study.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No explanation given.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes were reported.
Protection against contamination bias	Unclear risk	It is unclear if there was a contamination between the intervention and the control group.
Other bias	Unclear risk	It is unclear to determine if there are other biases.