Suppr超能文献

即时检测在社区药房中的影响:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Impact of point-of-care tests in community pharmacies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Academic Centre for General Practice, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, Belgium.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2020 May 15;10(5):e034298. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034298.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the literature regarding the use of point-of-care test (POCT) in pharmacies versus control/usual care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis in community pharmacy.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, ClinicalTrial.gov and Web of Science databases were searched.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Articles were included if they: involved a POCT conducted by a community pharmacist, member of pharmacy staff or local equivalent; measured a clinically relevant outcome for example, clinical parameter monitoring. No clinical condition or language limits were set.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

No patient involvement.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were independently extracted by two members of the review team to capture changes in clinical care that resulted from the use of the POCTs. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed, using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

Thirteen of the 1584 articles found were included in the meta-analyses. Studies covered four therapeutic areas: targeted anti-malarial therapy (n=3 studies), glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in diabetes (n=2 studies), lipid control (n=3 studies) and international normalised ratio (INR) control in patients taking warfarin (n=5 studies). POCT in pharmacies reduced the risk of receiving antimalarial treatment when not clinically indicated (risk ratio 0.34, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.37). Lipid and HbA1c control appeared largely unaffected by pharmacy POCTs, and the impact on INR time-in-therapeutic-range was inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 4 out of 13 included studies used a gold-standard randomised controlled trial (RCT) design, limiting our ability to conclusively determine the clinical utility of POCT conducted in pharmacies. Further RCTs are needed, particularly in areas such as upper respiratory tract infections, which have gathered momentum among service commissioners in recent years.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017048578.

摘要

目的

总结关于在药房使用即时检验(POCT)与对照/常规护理的文献。

设计和设置

社区药房中的系统评价和随机效应荟萃分析。

数据来源

检索 MEDLINE、Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库、Embase、ClinicalTrials.gov 和 Web of Science 数据库。

入选标准

如果文章:涉及由社区药剂师、药剂师工作人员或当地同等人员进行的 POCT;测量临床相关结果,例如临床参数监测。未设置临床条件或语言限制。

患者和公众参与

无患者参与。

数据提取和综合

两名评审团队成员独立提取数据,以捕捉使用 POCT 导致的临床护理变化。使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具和纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评估纳入研究的方法学质量。

结果

在 1584 篇文章中,有 13 篇被纳入荟萃分析。研究涵盖了四个治疗领域:靶向抗疟治疗(n=3 项研究)、糖尿病患者的糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)(n=2 项研究)、血脂控制(n=3 项研究)和服用华法林的患者的国际标准化比值(INR)控制(n=5 项研究)。药房中的 POCT 降低了在没有临床指征的情况下接受抗疟治疗的风险(风险比 0.34,95%CI 0.31 至 0.37)。血脂和 HbA1c 控制似乎受药房 POCT 的影响不大,而对 INR 治疗范围内时间的影响尚无定论。

结论

只有 13 项纳入研究中的 4 项使用了黄金标准随机对照试验(RCT)设计,限制了我们确定药房中进行的 POCT 的临床实用性的能力。需要进一步的 RCT,特别是在近年来服务委员会越来越关注的上呼吸道感染等领域。

PROSPERO 注册号:CRD42017048578。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e553/7232628/e73c90ae0eba/bmjopen-2019-034298f01.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验