Bonnerup 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	Randomised controlled trial
Participants	375 participants randomised (124 to high‐risk subgroup: 64 to medication review and 60 to control group) Patients admitted to 1 acute medical department at a university hospital in Denmark Mean age: medication review group (not available), control group 78.2 years; mean number of drugs: 11.0
Interventions	Patients presenting with risk of prescribing errors identified by a risk score called MERIS (ranging from 0 to 37). A MERIS score between 14 and 26 warranted a medication review by a clinical pharmacist, whereas a risk score ≥ 26 led to medication review by a clinical pharmacologist. Medication reviews consisted of (1) collecting information concerning the participant's drug treatment and the clinical status of the participant, (2) conducting a participant interview and (3) performing a critical examination of a participant's overall drug treatment. Recommendations or information arising from the medication reviews were delivered to hospital physicians as a note in the electronic medical record. If fast response was needed (e.g. if the participant was about to be discharged, if urgent action was required), the note was accompanied by direct contact with a physician.  Participants in the control group received usual care.
Outcomes	Primary outcome: number of prescribing errors during participants' hospitalisation Secondary outcomes: health care utilisation (divided into all‐cause readmissions, contacts with general practitioners and visits to emergency departments), health‐related quality of life, mortality All outcomes had 90 days of follow‐up (after hospital discharge)
Notes	Funding: not described
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation was generated by a computer program in the hospital pharmacy in random blocks of a maximum of 20.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Sequentially numbered, opaque and sealed envelopes containing randomisation codes were delivered to study pharmacists who allocated participants.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not described, but probably not blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Mortality (all‐cause)	Low risk	Mortality data were taken from a non‐biased national register (participants identifiable through unique patient‐specific social security numbers).
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Hospital readmissions (all‐cause)	Low risk	Readmission data were taken from a non‐biased national register.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Hospital emergency department contacts (all‐cause)	Low risk	Emergency department contacts were taken from a non‐biased national register.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Mortality (all‐cause)	Low risk	No missing data were described; all data should be available from a non‐biased national register.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Hospital readmissions (all‐cause)	Low risk	No missing data were described; all data should be available from a non‐biased national register.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Hospital emergency department contacts (all‐cause)	Low risk	No missing data were described; all data should be available from a non‐biased national register.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Relevant outcomes were collected and were similar to information provided on www.clinicaltrials.gov.
Contamination bias	High risk	No cluster‐randomisation.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Only participants with high risk of prescription errors (35%) received a medication review out of all participants allocated to the medication review group. Baseline data for this subgroup were not reported, and we therefore judged the trial as having unclear risk of other biases.