000296216 001__ 296216
000296216 005__ 20250210124733.0
000296216 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1016/j.arr.2025.102661
000296216 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:39805472
000296216 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1568-1637
000296216 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1872-9649
000296216 0247_ $$2altmetric$$aaltmetric:172958528
000296216 037__ $$aDKFZ-2025-00129
000296216 041__ $$aEnglish
000296216 082__ $$a610
000296216 1001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)32395dd61ce265f1f29942fadf07e669$$aDegen, Miriam$$b0$$eFirst author$$udkfz
000296216 245__ $$aMedication reviews in hospitalised patients for reduced hospital readmission and mortality. Systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of RCTs.
000296216 260__ $$aOxford [u.a.]$$bElsevier$$c2025
000296216 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000296216 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000296216 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1739188012_28365$$xReview Article
000296216 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000296216 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000296216 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000296216 500__ $$a#EA:C070#LA:C070# / 2025 Feb;104:102661
000296216 520__ $$aEfforts to reduce preventable medication-related harm through medication reviews have increased, but interventions often yield null-results regarding clinical outcomes. We conducted a systematic literature search in four data bases and summarised the available evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing medication reviews and usual care in hospitalised patients regarding hospital readmissions and all-cause mortality by random-effects meta-analyses. Effect size differences by methodological study differences were of special interest. The meta-analysis of all 24 trials on hospital readmissions, including 12,539 participants, showed a statistically significant 8% decrease in hospital readmissions (risk ratio (RR) [95% confidence interval]: (0.92 [0.88-0.97], p=0.002). The number of patient contacts was the most prominent effect modifier in meta-regression (p=0.003) and the effect of medication reviews was approximately twice as strong (15%) in 11 trials with 2 or more patient contacts (0.85 [0.78-0.92], p<0.001). No statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality was observed in a meta-analysis of all 22 trials with data for this outcome (0.95 [0.86-1.04], p=0.24), including 12,350 participants. The method of mortality assessment was identified as an effect modifier by meta-regression (p=0.01). A meta-analysis of 10 trials with complete mortality ascertainment via registries or primary care data showed a significantly 19% reduced mortality (0.81 [0.70-0.94], p<0.01)). In conclusion, medication reviews reduce the risk of hospital readmission and might also reduce all-cause mortality. Comprehensive mortality assessment was essential for successful trials. Clinical guidelines should recommend medication reviews with multiple patient contacts, involving pharmacists, either for repeated medication reviews or to improve adherence.
000296216 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313$$a313 - Krebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention (POF4-313)$$cPOF4-313$$fPOF IV$$x0
000296216 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed, , Journals: inrepo02.dkfz.de
000296216 650_7 $$2Other$$aHospitalizations
000296216 650_7 $$2Other$$aMedication Review
000296216 650_7 $$2Other$$aMortality
000296216 650_7 $$2Other$$aPolypharmacy
000296216 650_7 $$2Other$$aRandomized Controlled Trial
000296216 650_7 $$2Other$$aSystematic Review
000296216 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)ad44271ecf6b1eec3e0d0089c66dfdbe$$aChen, Li-Ju$$b1$$udkfz
000296216 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)c67a12496b8aac150c0eef888d808d46$$aSchöttker, Ben$$b2$$eLast author$$udkfz
000296216 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)2099320-1$$a10.1016/j.arr.2025.102661$$gp. 102661 -$$p102661$$tAgeing research reviews$$v104$$x1568-1637$$y2025
000296216 909CO $$ooai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:296216$$pVDB
000296216 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)32395dd61ce265f1f29942fadf07e669$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b0$$kDKFZ
000296216 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)ad44271ecf6b1eec3e0d0089c66dfdbe$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b1$$kDKFZ
000296216 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)c67a12496b8aac150c0eef888d808d46$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b2$$kDKFZ
000296216 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF4-310$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF4-300$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF4$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bGesundheit$$lKrebsforschung$$vKrebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention$$x0
000296216 9141_ $$y2025
000296216 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0420$$2StatID$$aNationallizenz$$d2023-08-24$$wger
000296216 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bAGEING RES REV : 2022$$d2023-08-24
000296216 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS$$d2023-08-24
000296216 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline$$d2023-08-24
000296216 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0600$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEbsco Academic Search$$d2023-08-24
000296216 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0030$$2StatID$$aPeer Review$$bASC$$d2023-08-24
000296216 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bClarivate Analytics Master Journal List$$d2023-08-24
000296216 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1050$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bBIOSIS Previews$$d2023-08-24
000296216 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0113$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded$$d2023-08-24
000296216 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection$$d2023-08-24
000296216 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1120$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bBIOSIS Reviews Reports And Meetings$$d2023-08-24
000296216 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0160$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEssential Science Indicators$$d2023-08-24
000296216 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9910$$2StatID$$aIF >= 10$$bAGEING RES REV : 2022$$d2023-08-24
000296216 9202_ $$0I:(DE-He78)C070-20160331$$kC070$$lC070 Klinische Epidemiologie und Alternf.$$x0
000296216 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)C070-20160331$$kC070$$lC070 Klinische Epidemiologie und Alternf.$$x0
000296216 9200_ $$0I:(DE-He78)C070-20160331$$kC070$$lC070 Klinische Epidemiologie und Alternf.$$x0
000296216 980__ $$ajournal
000296216 980__ $$aVDB
000296216 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)C070-20160331
000296216 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED