Pharmacists' non‐dispensing roles targeting non‐hospitalised patients vs the delivery of no comparable service: % outside HbA1c range
It is very uncertain whether pharmacists' non‐dispensing roles targeting non‐hospitalised patients changes % outside HbA1c range compared with the delivery of no comparable service (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Pharmacists' non‐dispensing roles targeting non‐hospitalised patients vs the delivery of no comparable service % outside HbA1c range · Health problem or population It is very uncertain whether pharmacists' non‐dispensing roles targeting non‐hospitalised patients changes % outside HbA1c range compared with the delivery of no comparable service (very low certainty). Pharmacist services for non‐hospitalised patients (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | OR 0.29 [0.04, 2.22] | 558 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pharmacist services for non‐hospitalised patients 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.