↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Effectiveness of the clinical pharmacist in reducing mortality in hospitalized cardiac patients: a propensity score-matched analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Effectiveness of the clinical pharmacist in reducing mortality in hospitalized cardiac patients: a propensity score-matched analysis
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, February 2016
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s98300
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiao-bo Zhai, Zhi-chun Gu, Xiao-yan Liu

Abstract

Pharmacist-led medication review services have been assessed in the meta-analyses in hospital. Of the 135 relevant articles located, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria; however, there was no statistically significant difference found between pharmacists' interventions and usual care for mortality (odds ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval 0.65, 3.46, P=0.34). These analyses may not have found a statistically significant effect because they did not adequately control the wide variation in the delivery of care and patient selection parameters. Additionally, the investigators did not conduct research on the cases of death specifically and did not identify all possible drug-related problems (DRPs) that could cause or contribute to mortality and then convince physicians to correct. So there will be a condition to use a more precise approach to evaluate the effect of clinical pharmacist interventions on the mortality rates of hospitalized cardiac patients. To evaluate the impact of the clinical pharmacist as a direct patient-care team member on the mortality of all patients admitted to the cardiology unit. A comparative study was conducted in a cardiology unit of a university-affiliated hospital. The clinical pharmacists did not perform any intervention associated with improper use of medications during Phase I (preintervention) and consulted with the physicians to address the DRPs during Phase II (postintervention). The two phases were compared to evaluate the outcome, and propensity score (PS) matching was applied to enhance the comparability. The primary endpoint of the study was the composite of all-cause mortality during Phase I and Phase II. Pharmacists were consulted by the physicians to correct any drug-related issues that they suspected may cause or contribute to a fatal outcome in the cardiology ward. A total of 1,541 interventions were suggested by the clinical pharmacist in the study group; 1,416 (92.0%) of them were accepted by the cardiology team, and violation of incompatibilities had the highest percentage of acceptance by the cardiology team. All-cause mortality was 1.5% during Phase I (preintervention) and was reduced to 0.9% during Phase II (postintervention), and the difference was statistically significant (P=0.0005). After PS matching, all-cause mortality changed from 1.7% during Phase I down to 1.0% during Phase II, and the difference was also statistically significant (P=0.0074). DRPs that were suspected to cause or contribute to a possibly fatal outcome were determined by clinical pharmacist service in patients hospitalized in a cardiology ward. Correction of these DRPs by physicians after pharmacist's advice caused a significant decrease in mortality as analyzed by PS matching. The significant reduction in the mortality rate in this patient population observed in this study is "hypothesis generating" for future randomized studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Researcher 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 16 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Psychology 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 18 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 February 2020.
All research outputs
#4,755,065
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#224
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,124
of 406,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#7
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 406,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.