Systematic reviews and pairwise meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, at the intersection of clinical medicine, epidemiology and statistics, are positioned at the top of evidence-based practice hierarchy. These are important tools to base drugs approval, clinical protocols and guidelines formulation and for decision-making. However, this traditional technique only partially yield information that clinicians, patients and policy-makers need to make informed decisions, since it usually compares only two interventions at the time. In the market, regardless the clinical condition under evaluation, usually many interventions are available and few of them have been studied in head-to-head studies. This scenario precludes conclusions to be drawn from comparisons of all interventions profile (e.g. efficacy and safety). The recent development and introduction of a new technique – usually referred as network meta-analysis, indirect meta-analysis, multiple or mixed treatment comparisons – has allowed the estimation of metrics for all possible comparisons in the same model, simultaneously gathering direct and indirect evidence. Over the last years this statistical tool has matured as technique with models available for all types of raw data, producing different pooled effect measures, using both Frequentist and Bayesian frameworks, with different software packages. However, the conduction, report and interpretation of network meta-analysis still poses multiple challenges that should be carefully considered, especially because this technique inherits all assumptions from pairwise meta-analysis but with increased complexity. Thus, we aim to provide a basic explanation of network meta-analysis conduction, highlighting its risks and benefits for evidence-based practice, including information on statistical methods evolution, assumptions and steps for performing the analysis.

Systematic reviews that assessed clinical pharmacy services targeting specific conditions were more conclusive given that the intervention was well defined, and the measured outcomes were unequivocal and tangible. Conversely, the results were inconclusive for interventions with a broader target and with monitoring parameters that were unclearly established or inconsistently assessed across studies. These findings emphasize the need to better define clinical pharmacy services and standardize methods that assess the impact of these services on patient health outcomes.

OBJECTIVES:This study aimed to evaluate the impact of pharmacist-provided discharge counseling on mortality rate, hospital readmissions, emergency department visits, and medication adherence at 30 days post discharge.METHODS:This randomized controlled trial was approved by the local ethics committee and included patients aged 18 years or older admitted to the cardiology ward of a Brazilian tertiary hospital. The intervention group received a pharmacist-led medication counseling session at discharge and a telephone follow-up three and 15 days after discharge. The outcomes included the number of deaths, hospital readmissions, emergency department visits, and medication adherence. All outcomes were evaluated during a pharmacist-led ambulatory consultation performed 30 days after discharge.RESULTS:Of 133 patients, 104 were included in the analysis (51 and 53 in the intervention and control groups, respectively). The intervention group had a lower overall readmission rate, number of emergency department visits, and mortality rate, but the differences were not statistically significant (p>0.05). However, the intervention group had a significantly lower readmission rate related to heart disease (0% vs. 11.3%, p=0.027), despite the small sample size. Furthermore, medication counseling contributed significantly to improved medication adherence according to three different tools (p<0.05).CONCLUSIONS:Pharmacist-provided discharge medication counseling resulted in better medication adherence scores and a lower incidence of cardiovascular-associated hospital readmissions, thus representing a useful service for cardiology patients.

The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the impact of pharmacists' interventions on clinical asthma outcomes on adult patients and to identify the outcome indicators used.PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Scielo were searched. Studies addressing pharmacists' interventions on adult asthma patients reporting clinical asthma outcomes were incorporated.11 clinical outcomes were identified in 21 studies. 10 studies measured the impact of the intervention on asthma control. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) and non-RCTs found positive results in percentages of controlled patients and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) scores. Discordant results were found for Asthma Control Test results. Asthma severity was assessed in four studies. One RCT found a significant decrease in the percentage of severe patients; two non-RCTs found significant improvements in severity scores. 11 studies reported pulmonary function indicators, showing inconsistent results. Eight studies measured asthma symptoms; three RCTs and four non-RCTs showed significant improvements.RCTs and non-RCTs generated similar results for most outcomes. Based on the evidence generated by RCTs, pharmacists' have a positive impact on the percentage of controlled patients, ACQ scores, severity and symptoms. Future research should report using the core outcome set of indicators established for asthma (PROSPERO CRD42014007019).