Evidence of the clinical effectiveness of cognitive pharmaceutical services for aged patients

Publication Type:
Journal Article
Age and Ageing, 2013, 42 (4), pp. 442 - 449
Issue Date:
Filename Description Size
Thumbnail2012004574OK.pdf188.99 kB
Adobe PDF
Full metadata record
Background: Cognitive pharmaceutical services (CPSs) encompass a variety of pharmacists' interventions to optimise pharmacotherapy. The clinical effectiveness of CPSs for aged patients remains controversial. Objective: To analyse and describe the evidence of theclinical effectiveness of CPSs in aged patients by means of performing a systematic review of systematic reviews. Methods: Using the recommended methodology by Cochrane, a searchwas undertaken for systematic reviews of the clinical effectiveness of CPSs in MEDLINE, EMBASE, DOAJ, SCIELO and COCHRANE LIBRARY. Reviews were assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument. Quality of the evidence in the reviews was ranked using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results: A total of 14 systematic reviews and one meta-analysis were analysed. The overall quality of the reviews was moderate. High and moderate strength of evidencewas found for the positive effect of certain CPSs on reducing the number and improving the appropriateness of medicines. There was conflicting evidence of the effect on adherence. There was limited evidence of high and moderate strength on clinical outcomes. No positive evidence was found on mortality, hospitalisations, functional capacity and cognitive function. No systematic reviews reported the effect on the level of control of health problems. Conclusions: certain types of CPSs reduce the number of medicines and improve the appropriateness of prescriptions. Longer follow-up periods and/or the use of surrogate clinical variables measuring the short-term impact are required to demonstrate the effect on clinical outcomes. © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: