Fernandes 2011.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT ‐ individual. Prospective, dual‐centre RCT with blinded independent observer assessments conducted to determine whether clinician access to medication‐related information from the Drug Profile Viewer (DPV) System in a surgical pre‐admission clinic, as part of a structured best possible medication history (BPMH) and multidisciplinary medication reconciliation process, would reduce the number of patients with at least one unintentional BPMH medication. Unit of allocation: patients Unit of analysis: patients
Participants	Surgical pre‐admission clinics of two tertiary care teaching hospitals. The targeted clinics already employed a pro‐active, sustained inter‐professional medication reconciliation model in which a structured best possible medication history (BPMH) is taken prior to writing admissions orders. Participants: all consecutive elective patients, at least 65 years old, who had a surgical pre‐admission clinic visit prior to undergoing surgical procedures. Patients were excluded if they were scheduled for discharge on the same day of surgery, from out of province (information not contained in DPV), or had remote telehealth pre‐admission assessments. The surgical pre‐admission best possible medication history (BPMH) was conducted by a pre‐admission clinic (PAC) staff pharmacist who completed a standardised medication reconciliation training program, had access to a standardised World Health Organization (WHO) endorsed BPMH interview guide and participated in central Ontario DPV clinician training (N = 410). IP adults (surgical wards)
Interventions	Intervention Technology medication reconciliation.  A pharmacist conducted BPMH as described above but also had access to a printed copy of the medication information contained in the DPV database which was actively used as part of the BPMH assessment.
Outcomes	Discrepancy resolution The primary endpoint, number of patients with at least one unintentional BPMH discrepancy at the time of pre‐admission clinic assessment, was assessed by an independent pharmacist study coordinator who did not participate in the informed consent process for the patient and was blinded to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was systematically determined by comparing the printed clinician BPMH medical chart note with the DPV printout to initially identify medication incongruencies along with any other clinical information in the chart. An “unintentional BPMH medication discrepancy” was defined as any medication entry that required correction (prior to surgery) after the incongruency clarification occurred, to reflect the most accurate representation of the patient’s medication‐taking practice. Secondary endpoints were the discrepancy characteristics, time required to complete the BPMH, unique discrepancies prevented by the DPV and clinical significance assessment for potential adverse drug events (Potential ADEs).
Notes	Funded by: Canada Health Infoway (Co‐funder) Ontario Ministry of Health and Long‐Term Care (Co‐funder) No trial number
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	The randomised treatment assignments were centrally prepared by an independent clinician using a random number computer generator and sealed in sequentially numbered, identical, opaque envelopes according to the allocation sequence.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	No blinding, but the review authors judge that the outcome is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No blinding, but the review authors judge that the outcome is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	The independent observer assessing the primary outcome was blinded to treatment assignment.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No missing outcome data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	The study protocol is not available but it is clear that the published reports include all expected outcomes, including those that were prespecified.
Conflict of interest	Unclear risk	Sponsored by Baxter Corporation
Other bias	Low risk	The study seems to be free of other bias.