Systematic reviews of pharmacy practice research: Methodologic issues in searching, evaluating, interpreting, and disseminating results

Annals of Pharmacotherapy

Volumn 43, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 118-122

  Charrois, Theresa L ^a   Durec, Tamara ^a   Tsuyuki, Ross T ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Outcomes; Pharmacy practice; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NOTE; PHARMACIST; PHARMACY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH; ANIMAL; EVALUATION STUDY; HUMAN; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS;

ANIMALS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; PHARMACISTS; PHARMACY;

EID: 58549111028     PISSN: 10600280     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1345/aph.1L302     Document Type: Note

References (29)

1. Tsuyuki RT, Johnson JA, Teo KK, et al. A randomized trial of the effect of community pharmacist intervention on cholesterol risk: the study of cardiovascular risk intervention by pharmacists (SCRIP). Arch Intern Med 2002;162:1149-55.
2. Tsuyuki RT, Olson KL, Dubyk AM, Schindel T, Johnson JA. Effect of community pharmacist intervention on cholesterol levels in patients with high risk of cardiovascular events: The second Study of Cardiovascular Risk Intervention by Pharmacists (SCRIP-plus). Am J Med 2004;116: 130-3.
3. Tsuyuki RT, Fradette M, Johnson JA, et al. A multicenter disease management program for hospitalized patients with heart failure. J Cardiac Fail 2004;10:473-80.
4. Cranor CW, Bunting BA, Christensen DB. The Asheville Project: long-term clinical and economic outcomes of a community pharmacy diabetes care program. J Am Pharm Assoc 2003;43:173-84.
5. Nola KM, Gourley DR, Portner TS, et al. Clinical and humanistic outcomes of a lipid management program in the community pharmacy setting. J Am Pharm Assoc 2000;40:166-73.
6. McConnell KJ, Zadvorny EB, Hardy AM, Delate T, Rasmussen JR, Merenich JA. Coronary artery disease and hypertension: outcomes of a pharmacist-managed blood pressure program. Pharmacotherapy 2006; 26:1333-41.
7. Bluml BM, McKenney JM, Cziraky MJ. Pharmaceutical care services and results in Project ImPACT: hyperlipidemia. J Am Pharm Assoc 2000;40:157-65.
8. Scott DM, Boyd ST, Stephan M, Augustine SC, Reardon TP. Outcomes of pharmacist-managed diabetes care services in a community health center. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2006;63:16-22.
9. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.0 [updated February 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed 2008 May 13).
10. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, et al. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacological treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:295-309.
11. Crumley ET, Wiebe N, Cramer K, Klassen TP, Hartling L. Which resources should be used to identify RCT/CCTs for systematic reviews: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005;5:24. DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-5-24
12. Alberani V, De Castro Pietrangeli P, Mazza AM. The use of grey literature in health sciences: a preliminary survey. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1990;78:358-63.
13. McGowan J, Sampson M. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. J Med Libr Assoc 2005;93:74-80.
14. Giustini D. University of British Columbia Library. Subject resources for searching for grey literature. http://toby.library.ubc.ca/subjects/subj-page2. cfm?id=877 (accessed 2008 May 8).
15. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUORUM statement. Quality reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354:1896-900.
16. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995;16:62-73.
17. Lundh A, Goetzsche P. Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008;8:22. DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-8-22
18. Altman DG, Schulz KF. Statistics notes: concealing treatment allocation in randomised trials. BMJ 2001;323:446-7.
19. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in healthcare: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001;323:42-6.
20. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.6 [updated September 2006]. www.cochrane.org/re-sources/ handbook/Handbook4.2.6Sep2006.pdf (accessed 2008 May 20).
21. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1-12.
22. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408-12.
23. Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Commun Health 1998;52:377-84.
24. Kozma CM, Reeder CE, Schultz RM. Economic, clinical and humanistic outcomes: a planning model for pharmacoeconomic research. Clin Ther 1993;15:1121-32.
25. Koshman SL, Charrois TL, Simpson SH, McAlister FA, Tsuyuki RT. Pharmacist care of patients with heart failure: a systematic review of randomized trials. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:687-94.
26. Charrois TL, Johnson JA, Blitz S, Tsuyuki RT. Relationship between number, timing, and type of pharmacist interventions and patient outcomes. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2005;62:1798-801.
27. Weinberger M, Oddone EZ, Henderson WG, et al. Multisite randomized controlled trials in health services research: scientific challenges and operational issues. Med Care 2001;39:627-34.
28. Mowatt G, Grimshaw JM, Davis DA, Mazmanian PE. Getting evidence into practice: the work of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group (EPOC). J Contin Educ Health Prof 2001;21:55-60.
29. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:657-62.