Cited by 199Pharmacy and Medical PracticesPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesDiabetes Management and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 79 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pharmacist interventions in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Open access
Pousinho, Sarah, Morgado, Manuel, Falcão, Amílcar, Alves, Gilberto·2016·Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is a major health problem that is growing rapidly worldwide. A collaborative and integrated team approach in which pharmacists can play a pivotal role should be sought when managing patients with diabetes. OBJECTIVE: To identify and summarize the main outcomes of pharmacist interventions in the management of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of any pharmacist intervention directed at patients with type 2 diabetes in comparison with usual care. Outcome measures of interest included glycosylated hemoglobin (Alc), blood glucose, blood pressure, lipid profile, body mass index (BMI), 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, medication adherence, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and economic outcomes. The risk of bias in included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies were included in this systematic review, involving 5,761 participants. The studies evaluated the effects of several pharmacist interventions carried out in various countries and in different health care facilities, such as community pharmacies, primary care clinics, and hospitals. The number of studies reporting each outcome of interest varied. Alc was evaluated in 26 studies, of which 24 reported a greater reduction in this outcome in the intervention group compared with the control group, with the difference in change between groups ranging from -0.18% to -2.1%. Eighteen studies assessed change in systolic blood pressure, of which 17 studies reported a greater improvement in this outcome in the intervention group, with the difference in change between groups varying between -3.3 mmHg and -23.05 mmHg. For diastolic blood pressure, a greater effect was also observed in the intervention group in 14 out of 15 studies, with the difference in change between groups varying between -0.21 mmHg and -9.1 mmHg. Thirteen studies described total cholesterol as an outcome measure, of which 10 reported a greater improvement in this outcome in the intervention group, with the difference in change between groups ranging from +18.95 mg dL(-1) to -32.48 mg dL(-1). With regard to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, a greater reduction in this parameter in the intervention group was documented in 12 out of 15 studies, with the difference in change between groups varying between +7.35 mg dL(-1) and -30 mg dL(-1). Similarly, favorable data were reported on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in the intervention group in 9 out of 12 studies that assessed this outcome, with the difference in change between groups ranging from -5.8 mg dL(-1) to +11 mg dL(-1). Data on triglycerides were also reported in 12 studies, of which 9 reported a greater reduction in triglycerides levels in the intervention group, with the difference in change between groups varying between +12 mg dL(-1) and -62 mg dL(-1). Overall, a beneficial effect on BMI was also described in the intervention group in 12 out of 14 studies. Of note, in all 6 studies that estimated the 10-year CHD risk among study patients, a greater improvement in the intervention group versus the control group was found. In addition, pharmacist interventions also had a positive impact on medication adherence and HRQoL in most studies that ascertained these outcomes. Finally, although only 3 studies conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis, pharmacist interventions proved to be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this review clearly support the involvement of pharmacists as members of health care teams in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes. DISCLOSURES: This systematic review was not funded. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Concept and study design were created by Pousinho, Morgado, and Alves. Pousinho took the lead in data collection, along with Alves, and data interpretation was performed by Pousinho, Falcão, and Alves. The manuscript was primarily written by Pousinho, along with Alves, and revised by Alves, Morgado, and Falcão.

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 · 10.18553/jmcp.2016.22.5.493

Cites

76 of 76 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Show all 79 references

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. International Diabetes Federation, 2015, IDF Diabetes Atlas
  2. Hepler CD, 1990, Am J Hosp Pharm, 47, 533
  3. Choe HM, 2005, Am J Manag Care, 11, 253
  4. Adepu R, 2010, Asian J Pharm Clin Res, 3, 174
  5. Chung WW, 2014, Patient Prefer Adherence, 8, 1185
  6. Farsaei S, 2011, J Res Med Sci, 16, 43
  7. Ghosh S, 2010, Int J Pharma Bio Sci, 1, 1
  8. Mahwi TO, 2013, Int J Pharm Sci Res, 4, 1363
  9. Ramanath KV, 2011, Asian J Pharm Clin Res, 4, 15
  10. Sriram S, 2011, J Res Med Sci, 16, S412
  11. Suppapitiporn S, 2005, J Med Assoc Thai, 88, S134
  12. 10.1042/cs1010671 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Rodríguez NFA, 2007, Pharm Care Esp, 9, 2
  14. Kozma CM, 1993, Clin Ther, 15, 1121

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Pousinho, S., Morgado, M., Falcão, A., & Alves, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Beira Interior (PT)
  • Centro de Neurociências e Biologia Celular (PT)
Venue
Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy
Published
2016-05
Volume
22
Issue
5
Pages
493-515
ISSN
  • 2376-0540 (ISSN-L)
  • 2376-1032
OpenAlex
W2345232808
Cited by
199
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 2
FWCI
3.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Universidade da Beira Interior
  • Universidade de Coimbra
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
pharmacist intervention, type 2 diabetes, HbA1c, blood pressure, lipid profile, LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, body mass index, medication adherence, health-related quality of life, coronary heart disease risk, economic outcomes, community pharmacy, primary care, hospital pharmacy, integrated care teams, diabetes management, usual care comparison, risk of bias, heterogeneity of results, publication bias
MeSH terms
Aged, Blood Pressure, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Male, Middle Aged, Pharmacists, Quality of Life, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Disease Management, Medication Adherence

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