scholarly journals Clinical outcomes of community pharmacy services: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. e567-e587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cancan Yuan ◽  
Yiwen Ding ◽  
Keruo Zhou ◽  
Yuankai Huang ◽  
Xiaoyu Xi
2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. 699-713 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Sabater-Hernández ◽  
Marta Sabater-Galindo ◽  
Fernando Fernandez-Llimos ◽  
Inajara Rotta ◽  
Lutfun N. Hossain ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 80 (5) ◽  
pp. 88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paulo Roque Obreli-Neto ◽  
Tiago Marques dos Reis ◽  
Camilo Molino Guidoni ◽  
Edmarlon Girotto ◽  
Marisabelle Lima Guerra ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 18-26
Author(s):  
Ana Mendonça ◽  
Cátia Santos ◽  
Isabel C. Pinto

Background. As a central part of the healthcare system, the community pharmacies are afflicted by the repercussions of the pandemic. Therefore, they have to adapt their services according to the needs of their communities. Objective. This article presents a systematic review with the aim to identify the additional services that community pharmacies are providing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. The PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect databases were searched systematically for relevant articles between December 2019 and April 2020, using “Community Pharmacy,” “Services,” “COVID-19,” “Coronavirus,” and “Pandemic” as the keywords. Fifty-nine articles in English, Portuguese, or Spanish were obtained and after applying the filtering criteria, nine of them were selected and included in the study. Results. Community pharmacies should provide pharmaceutical services that are according to the needs of the communities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, changes of these services must be in line with the common goal of preventing the spread of the disease. In addition to the pre-existing services such as medication dispensing and personalized care, community pharmacists must promote other types of services, for example, informing, advising, and educating the community, maintaining a stable supply of pharmaceuticals and health products, and screening of suspected cases. Conclusion. While remaining engaged in the coordinated efforts, community pharmacists should apply innovations in their practices to help prevent the spread of coronavirus.


Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleni Papoutsi ◽  
Vassilis G. Giannakoulis ◽  
Eleni Xourgia ◽  
Christina Routsi ◽  
Anastasia Kotanidou ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Although several international guidelines recommend early over late intubation of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), this issue is still controversial. We aimed to investigate the effect (if any) of timing of intubation on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 by carrying out a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods PubMed and Scopus were systematically searched, while references and preprint servers were explored, for relevant articles up to December 26, 2020, to identify studies which reported on mortality and/or morbidity of patients with COVID-19 undergoing early versus late intubation. “Early” was defined as intubation within 24 h from intensive care unit (ICU) admission, while “late” as intubation at any time after 24 h of ICU admission. All-cause mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) were the primary outcomes of the meta-analysis. Pooled risk ratio (RR), pooled mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020222147). Results A total of 12 studies, involving 8944 critically ill patients with COVID-19, were included. There was no statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality between patients undergoing early versus late intubation (3981 deaths; 45.4% versus 39.1%; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.99–1.15, p = 0.08). This was also the case for duration of MV (1892 patients; MD − 0.58 days, 95% CI − 3.06 to 1.89 days, p = 0.65). In a sensitivity analysis using an alternate definition of early/late intubation, intubation without versus with a prior trial of high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive mechanical ventilation was still not associated with a statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality (1128 deaths; 48.9% versus 42.5%; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99–1.25, p = 0.08). Conclusions The synthesized evidence suggests that timing of intubation may have no effect on mortality and morbidity of critically ill patients with COVID-19. These results might justify a wait-and-see approach, which may lead to fewer intubations. Relevant guidelines may therefore need to be updated.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document