Bruhn 2013.
| Methods | Randomised trial | |
| Participants | 193 participants with chronic pain (intervention (1) 70: intervention (2) 63: control 60) 6 general practices United Kingdom Year of study: March 201 to not stated. |
|
| Interventions | The intervention was pharmacist medication review with and without prescribing. Control patients received usual care. Patients attended a face‐to‐face consultation with the pharmacist at which a pharmaceutical care plan was agreed. The plan included medical history, current conditions; known allergies and adverse drug reactions; relevant laboratory results; pain‐related medications prescribed in the previous 10 years; current pain‐related prescription medications; current symptoms; lifestyle issues, including units of alcohol consumed each week; recommendations for changes to medication (if any); whether non‐pharmaceutical treatments had been considered; and any other relevant issues. In the prescribing arm, prescriptions for medicines were issued by the pharmacist. Patients were followed up either by phone or face‐to‐face, at each pharmacist’s discretion. |
|
| Outcomes | Chronic Pain Grade intensity | |
| Notes | Funding source: Medical Research Council (grant ID: 85356). Conflict of interest: None reported |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | All participating pharmacists took part in a 2‐day course updating them about pain management. As part of the training, participants defined and agreed the treatment algorithm they would all use. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Patients returning completed questionnaires were randomised by the researcher using a telephone randomisation service with a random number allocation which ensured allocation concealment. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All Outcomes/Outcome 1 | Low risk | Personnel were necessarily unblinded, but this is unlikely to bias the results. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All Outcomes/Outcome 1 | High risk | Largely self‐report and, as patients are unblinded, susceptible to bias |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | Between group attrition >10%. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All main results reported |
| Other bias | Low risk | None |