Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 276

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of Pharmacist Outpatient Interventions on Adults with Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review

Wubben, Deborah P., Vivian, Eva M.·2008·Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy
DOI 10.1592/phco.28.4.421
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As an integral part of the United States health care delivery system, pharmacists are ideally positioned to provide diabetes mellitus management. In this systematic review, we assessed the effectiveness of diabetes quality improvement strategies delivered by pharmacists in outpatient settings. Five electronic databases were searched for articles published through August 2007. Only randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, or cohort studies with a control group were eligible for inclusion. All interventions targeted adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes and measured diabetes‐related complications and/or surrogate outcomes of hemoglobin A1c (A1C), blood pressure, or lipid profiles. Study data were abstracted by one author and checked by a second author following a standardized template. Results were synthesized narratively, and study‐specific effect measures were calculated for the outcomes of interest. Twenty‐one articles met the inclusion criteria: nine randomized controlled trials, one controlled clinical trial, and 11 cohort studies. All interventions involved additional visits by pharmacists with expanded roles to care for adult patients with diabetes. The A1C was the primary outcome of interest for all but two studies. Results of this review revealed overall improvement in A1C for patients in a diverse group of settings and across multiple study designs. Studies with smaller numbers of participants and those performed in the United States generally showed greater improvements in intervention group measures of A1C. A greater effect was also noted when pharmacists were afforded prescriptive authority. Only a few studies examined health care resource use; their results suggested that pharmacist interventions can reduce long‐term costs by improving glycemic control and thus diminishing future diabetes complications. Findings from this review are limited by flaws in the study designs, including the high potential for selection bias in the study populations. However, due to the clinical significance of reported improvements in A1C, further trials with pharmacist case managers are warranted. Prospective assessments of the comparable efficacy of pharmacists to improve diabetes outcomes through self‐management education and pharmacologic management are recommended.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1592/phco.28.4.421

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

1 retracted

Cited by

See all 276

Metadata

Authors
Wubben, D. P., & Vivian, E. M.
Venue
Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-04
Volume
28
Issue
4
Pages
421-436
ISSN
  • 0277-0008 (ISSN-L)
  • 1875-9114
DOI
10.1592/phco.28.4.421
OpenAlex
W1997430032
Cited by
276
References
65
FWCI
4.38
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

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.