The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Pharmacist-led medication review in patients over 65: a randomized, controlled trial in primary care
Abstract
BACKGROUND: regular medication review has been recommended for those over 75 and those on multiple drug therapy. Pharmacists are a potential source of assistance in reviewing medication. Evidence of the benefits of this process is needed. OBJECTIVE: to study the effect of medication review led by a pharmacist on resolution of pharmaceutical care issues, medicine costs, use of health and social services and health-related quality of life. DESIGN: randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: general medical practices in the Grampian region of Scotland. SUBJECTS: patients aged at least 65 years, with at least two chronic disease states who were taking at least four prescribed medicines regularly. METHODS: pharmacists reviewed the drug therapy of 332 patients, using information obtained from the practice computer, medical records and patient interviews. In 168 patients, a pharmaceutical care plan was then drawn up and implemented. The 164 control patients continued to receive normal care. All outcome measures were assessed at baseline and after 3 months. RESULTS: all patients had at least two pharmaceutical care issues at baseline. Half of these were identified from the prescription record, the rest from notes and patient interview. Of all the issues, 21% were resolved by information found in notes and 8.5% by patient interview. General practitioners agreed with 96% of all care issues documented on the care plans in the intervention group. At the time of follow-up, 70% of the remaining care issues had been resolved in the intervention group, while only 14% had been resolved in the control group. There were no changes in medicine costs or health-related quality of life in either group. There were small increases in contacts with health-care professionals and slightly fewer hospital admissions among the intervention group than the control group. CONCLUSIONS: pharmacist-led medication review has the capacity to identify and resolve pharmaceutical care issues and may have some impact on the use of other health services.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Gallagher, P., & O'Mahony, D. (2008) · Age and Ageing · doi:10.1093/ageing/afn197 · Cited by 697
Martin, P., Tamblyn, R., Benedetti, A., Ahmed, S., & Tannenbaum, C. (2018) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2018.16131 · Cited by 401
Viswanathan, M., Kahwati, L. C., Golin, C. E., Blalock, S. J., Coker-Schwimmer, E., Posey, R., & Lohr, K. N. (2015) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.5841 · Cited by 362
Holland, R., Lenaghan, E., Harvey, I., Smith, R., Shepstone, L., Lipp, A., Christou, M., Evans, D., & Hand, C. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38338.674583.ae · Cited by 331
How safe is primary care? A systematic review
Panesar, S. S., deSilva, D., Carson-Stevens, A., Cresswell, K. M., Salvilla, S. A., Slight, S. P., Javad, S., Netuveli, G., Larizgoitia, I., Donaldson, L. J., et al. (2016) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004178 · Cited by 309
Metadata
- Authors
- Krska, J.
- Venue
- Age and Ageing
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2001-05-01
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 205-211
- ISSN
- 0002-0729 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2834
- OpenAlex
- W1997401959
- Cited by
- 359
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pharmacist-led medication review in patients over 65: a randomized, controlled trial in primary care. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ageing/30.3.205
- The paper
- Krska, J. (2001). Pharmacist-led medication review in patients over 65: a randomized, controlled trial in primary care. Age and Ageing. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/30.3.205
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.