| Reference | Reason for exclusion |
|---|---|
| Bevan 201321 | This study was assessed as partially applicable with very serious limitations. The analysis was a partial economic analysis that only focused on costs. The analysis built largely off assumptions and was not underpinned by a controlled study. A UK randomised controlled trial included in the review analysed the impact of pharmacists in the GP so more applicable evidence was available. |
| Baqir 201114 | This study was assessed as partially applicable with very serious limitations. A cost minimisation analysis was undertaken, assuming equivalent health outcomes, with no supporting evidence of equivalence. The comparator used in the study was a hypothetical scenario based on patient report. Intervention costs were not fully incorporated in the analysis. |
| Brown 201628 | This study was a non-UK study based on non-RCT data. Given there was more relevant data included in this review this evidence was excluded from this review. |
| Elliott 200863 | This study was assessed as partially applicable with very serious limitations. The main outcome of the paper was improvement in adherence. This is a very variable outcome that is likely to significantly change over time, meaning the 4 week analysis was likely not sufficient to capture the long term impacts. There is also uncertainty regarding the applicability of resource use and costs from 2004 to current NHS context. The evidence is based on one study and does not reflect all evidence in this area. The source of the unit costs used is not reported. It is unclear if the costs were calculated using national or local unit costs, which may limit generalisability. The follow-up is very short and different for health outcomes (4 weeks) and costs (2 months). It was assumed the effectiveness of the intervention persists beyond the 4 weeks and up to 2 months, with no evidence to support this assumption. |
| Elliott 201664 | This study was assessed as partially applicable with very serious limitations. The main outcome of the paper was improvement in adherence. This is a very variable outcome that is likely to significantly change over time, meaning the 10 week analysis was likely not sufficient to capture the long term impacts. EQ-5D was collected but not assessed. Although the intervention was cost saving the cost of medication had been excluded from the analysis, this is still a cost to the health service and should be included, making the cost saving conclusions potentially misleading. |
| Formoso 201369 | This study was a non-UK study based on non-RCT data. Given there was more relevant data included in this review this evidence was excluded from this review. |
| Hendrie 201486 | This study was a non-UK study based on non-RCT data. Given there was more relevant data included in this review this evidence was excluded from this review. |
| Krska 2001115 | This study was assessed as partially applicable with very serious limitations as hospital attendances were not included in the costs. Only medication costs were included. |
| Lenander 2014123 | This study was assessed as partially applicable with very serious limitations as only the cost of the intervention was reported. |
| Saini 2008180 | This study was assessed as partially applicable with very serious limitations. The perspective of the analysis is not reported and QALYs are not used as an outcome. Not all important health outcomes are reported. Intervention costs are not included in the analysis and the source of unit costs is not reported. No sensitivity analysis reported. Follow-up is short (6 months). |
| Taylor 2005A200 | This study was assessed as not applicable. The intervention is delivered by both hospital and community pharmacists in a hospital based clinic, rural and urban community pharmacies. The data was not reported separately for the community pharmacy-based intervention to allow estimating its cost effectiveness. |
| Wright 2015225,226 | This study (2 papers) was assessed as partially applicable with potentially serious limitations. However, the Committee judged that other available evidence was of greater applicability and methodological quality, and therefore this study was selectively excluded. The economic evaluation in the RESPECT trial172 was in the same strata but had a more generalizable population and was based on randomised evidence with a larger sample size. |
| Zermansky 2006228 | This study was assessed as partially applicable with very serious limitations as the cost of GP visits and hospitalisations were not included. |
From: Chapter 10, Community-based pharmacists
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.