Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mapping the characteristics of meta-analyses of pharmacy services: a systematic review.
Bonetti, Aline F; Della Rocca, Ana M; Lucchetta, Rosa C; Tonin, Fernanda S; Fernandez-Llimos, Fernando; Pontarolo, Roberto.
Afiliação
  • Bonetti AF; Pharmaceutical Sciences Postgraduate Program, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
  • Della Rocca AM; Pharmaceutical Sciences Postgraduate Program, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
  • Lucchetta RC; Pharmaceutical Sciences Postgraduate Program, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
  • Tonin FS; Pharmaceutical Sciences Postgraduate Program, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
  • Fernandez-Llimos F; Laboratory of Pharmacology, Department of Drug Sciences, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. fllimos@ff.up.pt.
  • Pontarolo R; Department of Pharmacy, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Int J Clin Pharm ; 42(5): 1252-1260, 2020 Oct.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32430882
BACKGROUND: Suboptimal meta-analyses with misleading conclusions are frequently published in the health areas, and they can compromise decision making in clinical practice. AIM OF THE REVIEW: This systematic review aimed to map the characteristics of published meta-analyses of pharmacy services and their association with the study conclusions. METHOD: We searched electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) to identify published meta-analyses of pharmacy services up to January 2019. Components of meta-analyses were extracted (i.e. studies' metadata; methods used in the systematic review; description of the statistical model used for the meta-analysis; main results; conflict of interest and funding source). The methodological quality was evaluated using the R-AMSTAR tool. RESULTS: A total of 85 meta-analyses were included, with 2016 as the median publication year. Overall, the methodological quality of meta-analyses of pharmacy services was considered suboptimal. Only one-third of authors registered a protocol; complete search strategy and raw data were provided by 55.3% and 9.4% of studies, respectively. Evidence strength (GRADE) was evaluated in only 19.2% of studies. PRISMA and Cochrane recommendations were stated to be followed in 60% and 27.4% of articles, respectively. Around half of studies performed sensitivity analysis, however, the prediction interval was presented by only one meta-analysis. Studies that favoured the pharmacists' interventions poorly discussed the methodological quality and heterogeneity of primary trials. CONCLUSION: Poor conduction and reporting were observed in meta-analyses of pharmacy services, especially in those that favoured the pharmacist's interventions. Reproducibility and transparency should be rigorously ensured by journal editors and peer-reviewers.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave
Texto completo
Adicionar na Minha BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar no Google

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Farmacêuticos / Assistência Farmacêutica / Metanálise como Assunto Tipo de estudo: Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Int J Clin Pharm Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Brasil País de publicação: Holanda
Texto completo
Adicionar na Minha BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar no Google

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Farmacêuticos / Assistência Farmacêutica / Metanálise como Assunto Tipo de estudo: Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Int J Clin Pharm Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Brasil País de publicação: Holanda