You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 12, Issue 5
  • Pharmacist interventions to improve hypertension management: protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Public health
Protocol
Pharmacist interventions to improve hypertension management: protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials
  1. Viktoria Gastens1,2,
  2. Blanche Kiszio3,
  3. Cinzia Del Giovane1,2,
  4. Ross Tsuyuki4,
  5. Gilles Paradis5,
  6. Arnaud Chiolero1,5,
  7. Valérie Santschi3
  1. 1Population Health Laboratory (#PopHealthLab), University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
  2. 2Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
  3. 3La Source, School of Nursing Sciences, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Lausanne, Switzerland
  4. 4Epicore Center, Department of Medicine, Department of Pharmacology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  5. 5School of Population and Global Health, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Professor Valérie Santschi; v.santschi{at}ecolelasource.ch

Abstract

Introduction Hypertension management remains a major public health challenge in primary care. Innovative interventions to improve blood pressure (BP) control are needed. One approach is through community-based models of care with the involvement of pharmacists and other non-physician healthcare professionals. Our objective is to systematically review the evidence of the impact of pharmacist care alone or in collaboration with other healthcare professionals on BP among hypertensive outpatients compared with usual care. Because these interventions can be complex, with various components, the effect size may differ between the type of interventions. One major focus of our study will be to assess carefully the heterogeneity in the effects of these interventions to identify which ones work best in a given healthcare setting.

Methods and analysis Systematic searches of the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica (Embase) and Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases will be conducted. Randomised controlled trials assessing the effect of pharmacist interventions on BP among outpatients will be included. Examples for pharmacist interventions are patient education, feedback to physician and medication management. The outcome will be the change in BP or BP at follow-up or BP control. Results will be synthesised descriptively and, if appropriate, will be pooled across studies to perform meta-analyses. If feasible, we will also perform a network meta-analysis to compare interventions that have not been compared directly head-to-head by using indirect evidence. Heterogeneity in the effect will be evaluated through prespecified subgroup and stratified analyses, accounting notably for the type and intensity of interventions, patients’ characteristics and healthcare setting.

Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required as the results will be drawn from currently available published literature. Outcomes of the review will be shared through peer-reviewed journal and used for implementation policy.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42021279751.

  • Hypertension
  • HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT
  • PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
  • PUBLIC HEALTH
  • CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
  • EPIDEMIOLOGY
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059399

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Strengths and limitations of this study

    • This systematic review will provide updated evidence on the effect of pharmacist intervention on blood pressure management.

    • Heterogeneity in the effect of these interventions will be carefully evaluated which will help the implementation of effective interventions in various healthcare setting.

    • We will assess the comparative effectiveness of each intervention compared with each other by using direct and indirect evidence.

    • Due to the expected heterogeneity and complexity of both interventions and usual care, a sharp contrast between interventions might be difficult and the feasibility of the network meta-analysis might be limited.

    • The review methods were carefully planned according to current guidelines (Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) and prospectively submitted to the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) to minimise risk of bias related to study design and conduct and insure adequate reporting of results in the completed review.

    Introduction

    Rationale

    Elevated blood pressure (BP) is the greatest single contributor to the global burden of disease and to global mortality.1 Although reduction of BP is a cornerstone of the prevention of cardiovascular diseases,2 numerous hypertensive patients do not achieve adequate BP control. Recent data that several healthcare jurisdictions might have reached a plateau in the percentage of treated and well-controlled hypertensive patients.3 Innovative interventions to improve BP control are therefore needed in primary care, where management of hypertension takes place.

    One approach is a greater use of community-based models of care with the involvement of pharmacists and other non-physician healthcare professionals.4 5 Pharmacists are highly accessible healthcare professionals and a valuable asset in the management of hypertension.6 7 The US Community Preventive Services Task Force has recommended team-based care, including pharmacists, to improve BP control.8 Further, recent hypertension guidelines, notably the 2017 guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association as well as the 2018 guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension, recommend the involvement of pharmacists for the team-based care management of hypertension.9–11

    A recent umbrella review (ie, a review of reviews) found that community pharmacists can improve clinical outcomes in a wide array of chronic diseases, including diabetes, hyperlipidaemia, HIV/AIDS, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.12 The authors of this review concluded however that further studies were needed to assess the impact of specific interventions on given outcomes, and that is actually what we aim for in the current review that we will conduct. In 2014, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 39 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 14 224 patients and found that pharmacist interventions—alone or in collaboration with other healthcare professionals—improved BP management.13 Since then, new studies have been conducted to evaluate different types of interventions, notably using e-health and digital tools.14 15 Our review indicated also that pharmacist interventions had differential effects on BP, from very large to modest or no effect. Reasons for this large heterogeneity could not be clearly explained. It might be not surprising that the effect size may differ between the type of interventions, but it is key to try to identify what works best: is the intensity of intervention linked to the effect size? Are characteristics of the patients or specific setting associated with a large effect?

    To address these questions, and toward the efficient implementation of this type of interventions in different healthcare setting and jurisdictions,16 updating evidence and explaining this heterogeneity is needed. In addition, with a view to identify what intervention works best, we will assess the feasibility of performing a network meta-analysis. This method allows estimate the comparative effectiveness of each intervention against each other by using direct and indirect evidence and rank interventions.17 One key element will be to determine the effect on BP according to the duration and intensity of interventions. Hence, we have shown previously that the effect on BP could be larger if the intervention was done at least monthly.13 Further, we will also assess whether there is an effect once the intervention is over. Hence, we have recently shown in a trial conducted in Switzerland that an effect on BP was seen 6 months after the end of a 6 months team-based care intervention involving pharmacists.18 This is one major element to assess the long-term effect of this type of interventions.

    Objectives

    The aim of this manuscript is to describe a protocol to systematically review, synthesise, and update the evidence of the impact of pharmacist care alone or in collaboration with other healthcare professionals on the control of elevated BP among outpatients when compared with those receiving usual care and to each other. The heterogeneity in the effect of these interventions will be closely evaluated notably to identify which interventions work best, for specific patients and in a given healthcare setting.

    Methods and analysis

    We will follow methods for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses according to Cochrane Collaboration and Center for Reviews and Dissemination guidance.19 20 We will report this protocol according the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols: elaboration and explanation paper.21 This updating protocol has been submitted to the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO).

    Eligibility criteria

    Study design

    The following criteria will be used to consider inclusion and exclusion of studies for this review. RCTs, cluster RCTs and cross-over RCTs will be eligible. Case reports, case series, non-randomised evaluations, reviews, meta-analyses, conference proceedings, policy papers, study protocols and expert opinions will be excluded.

    Setting

    Studies based in a community/ambulatory care setting will be included.

    Participants

    Studies will be considered if they include adult outpatients (18 years or over) with a diagnosis of hypertension, treated or not treated.

    Exposures/interventions

    We will include studies if they evaluate the effect of pharmacist interventions—alone or in collaborative care—in outpatients with hypertension compared with usual care. The pharmacist care must be delivered by a community or clinical pharmacist. We will classify pharmacist interventions using the following pre-defined categories: (1) pharmacist-directed care (pharmacist initiated and managed care) and (2) pharmacist collaborative care (pharmacist collaborating in interventions conducted by a multidisciplinary healthcare team according to the definition provided by Koshman et al;22 the team can include physicians or nurses as well as physiotherapists, social workers or respiratory therapists).

    Further, based on the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) taxonomy interventions, we will consider interventions targeted at patient level and at healthcare provider level as described in table 1.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Considered interventions based on the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care taxonomy

    We will exclude interventions targeted at healthcare organisation or regulatory level.

    Comparators

    Pharmacist intervention will be compared with usual care. We expect that usual care will encompass different situations between the included studies, ranging from regular visits by healthcare providers (planned or not) to no specific intervention. We also expect to have few information about usual care. We will however, if available, collect data systematically on usual care and describe it in detail in the final manuscript. We will try at least to collect information on the type of healthcare providers involved and the number of visits.

    Outcome measures

    Outcomes will be the systolic and diastolic BP at follow-up, the change in systolic and diastolic BP from last follow-up to baseline, or the BP control (BP below a predefined target level) at follow-up. We will extract outcomes in all data forms (continuous, dichotomous) as reported in included studies. Main results will be reported as mean difference in systolic and diastolic BP. We do no plan to impute missing data for the main outcome. If available, we will collect data on drug-related problems.

    Time frame

    There will be no restriction by duration of intervention or by length of follow-up. We will further identify studies in which the outcome was measured a period of time after the intervention is over to assess whether the intervention has an effect beyond the time of its application.

    Language

    We will consider publications in English, French and German.

    Search strategy

    The search strategy aims to find both published and unpublished studies. The specific search strategies will be developed by an experienced medical librarian in systematic review searching (BK) in consultation with the project team. They are constructed to include the two main concepts of this systematic review: ‘hypertension’ and ‘pharmacist intervention’.

    A three-step search strategy is used in this review. First, an initial limited search of MEDLINE (Ovid) is undertaken using the search terms ‘Pharmacist intervention’, ‘Pharmacists’, ‘Pharmaceutical Services’, ‘Pharmacy Service, Hospital’, ‘Pharmacies’, ‘Pharmacy’, ‘Hypertension’, ‘Blood pressure’. Second, an analysis of the text words contained in each article’s title, abstract and index terms is undertaken to expand the list of search terms. Based on the results of this analysis, a more thorough search is conducted in the chosen databases. The search strategy for MEDLINE (table 2) was created first and is then adapted for each database, including all identified keywords and index terms. Third, the reference lists of all included studies selected for critical appraisal is searched by hand and cited reference searches for all included studies will be conducted in Web of Science in order to find any additional studies not identified during the initial search processes.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Search strategy for Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE)

    The electronic databases to be searched include:

    1. MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to DD Month YYYY).

    2. Excerpta Medica database (Embase) (1947 to DD Month YYYY).

    3. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (1947 to DD Month YYYY).

    4. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (1995 to DD Month YYYY).

    5. CINAHL (EBSCO) (1937 to DD Month YYYY).

    6. Web of Science (1900 to DD Month YYYY).

    7. Joanna Briggs Institute (Ovid) (1998 to DD Month YYYY).

    8. Tripdatabase (1997 to DD Month YYYY).

    The search for unpublished studies will include:

    1. Grey Literature Report (New York Academy of Medicine) www.greylit.org.

    The principal investigators of completed studies found on the trial registers will be contacted, via email, to access unpublished data. Supplementary searches for grey literature will be conducted through Google Scholar.

    We will consider all publications in English, French and German and search all databases from inception to the date of search. The methodology search filter to limit retrieval to appropriate study designs, a modified version of the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy, is used to identify randomised trials.19

    Study selection

    Two independent reviews authors (VG and BK) will select studies at each phase of the review (screening, eligibility and inclusion in systematic review). After removing duplicate publications, titles and abstracts will be screened independently and in parallel for inclusion using the inclusion criteria (VG and BK). The citations (titles/abstracts) will be examined (electronically) independently by each reviewer who will indicate whether a citation is potentially relevant (meet inclusion criteria), is clearly not relevant, or if information is insufficient to make a judgement.

    We will obtain full-text publications for all titles/abstracts that appear to meet inclusion criteria or where there is any uncertainty. Full-text publications will be independently examined to identify studies for inclusion (VG and BK) reasons for exclusion of ineligible studies will be recorded. Any disagreement will be resolved through discussion or, if required a third review author will be consulted (AC or VS). The selection process will be recorded in detail in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram.23

    Data extraction

    Study records retrieved by electronic searching will be uploaded to a reference management software (Covidence24) to enable importing citations, removing of duplicates, screening titles and abstracts and then full-texts publications. Data will be independently extracted by two reviewers (VG and BK) from each eligible study. To ensure consistency across reviewers, we will conduct calibration exercises before starting the review.

    Using a structured data collection form, the two reviewers will independently extract the following data:

    1. Study identification

      • Author(s), year of publication, study country.

    2. Study characteristics

      • Setting and design.

      • Study duration, frequency of follow-up.

      • Randomisation, blinding.

      • Sample size (total and per arm).

    3. Participants characteristics

      • Number of participants allocated to each group, number of patients analysed.

      • Mean age, age range and sex.

      • Diabetes, other comorbidities and cardiovascular risk factors (smoking, dyslipidaemia).

      • Drug intake.

    4. Usual care (control group) characteristics

      • Healthcare providers involved.

      • Frequency of follow-up.

    5. Intervention characteristics

      • Type of interventions (pharmacist alone or in collaboration).

      • Duration of intervention.

      • Description of interventions: key components, frequency, format (noting if the detail provided is enough for replication), healthcare providers involved.

      • Use of e-health or digital tools.

    6. Outcomes

      • BP at baseline.

      • BP at follow-up, change in BP from baseline.

      • BP control (according to a pre-defined BP target).

      • BP as a primary or secondary outcome of the trial.

      • Method of BP measurement.

    Discrepancies will be resolved through discussion. Where discrepancies remain, the abstract and retrieved information will be reviewed by a third author (AC or VS).

    Assessment of risk of bias in included studies—study quality

    Two reviewers will independently assess the risk of bias (study quality) for each study using the ‘Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool’ for randomised trials.19 This tool assesses the risk of bias according to the following domains:

    1. Random sequence generation.

    2. Allocation concealment.

    3. Blinding of participants and personnel.

    4. Blinding of outcome assessment.

    5. Completeness of outcome data.

    6. Selective outcome reporting (intention-to-treat and follow-up).

    7. Other bias (eg, baseline imbalance inpatient characteristics).

    We will classify the risk of bias for each domain as either ‘low’, ‘unclear’ or ‘high’ and provide information from each study together with the reasons for our evaluation in the risk of bias tables.19 Given the type of RCTs included in our review, blinding the participants and personnel is not feasible; only the outcome assessment can be blinded. In contrast, personnel blinding is impossible in cluster randomised trials. When blinding is not possible, evaluation is performed in each area; however, it will not be considered as an important domain when evaluating the entire RCT. We will resolve any disagreements through discussions. There is some consensus that these items can be applied for evaluation of studies across diverse clinical areas.25

    The quality of BP measurement will be also systematically assessed along three criteria: (1) use of clinically validated BP measurement devices; (2) training of outcome assessor; (3) measurement of BP out of the office. Criteria will be assessed as ‘low’, ‘unclear’ or ‘high’.19

    We will resolve any disagreement in quality assessment through discussions and involvement of an arbitrator where necessary.

    The risk of bias for cluster randomised trials will be assessed according to the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions,19 which are as:

    1. Recruitment bias

    2. Baseline imbalance.

    3. Loss of clusters.

    4. Incorrect analysis.

    5. Comparability with individually randomised trials.

    We will derive an overall study risk of bias as follow. A judgement of high risk of bias in one or more domains will be considered as a ‘high risk’ study, a judgement of low risk of bias in most domains will be considered as a ‘low risk’ study, and a judgement of unclear risk of bias in most domains as an ‘unclear risk’ study. When considering treatment effects, we will take into account the risk of bias for the studies that contribute to that outcome.

    Data analysis

    Statistical analyses will be carried out using Stata (V.15.1) and R (V.4.1.0). Based on previous systematic reviews, we are confident that we will be able to pool data and run pairwise meta-analysis. Heterogeneity in the effect of interventions is expected across studies and random effect models will be used to estimate intervention effects and 95% CIs.26 27 If feasible, meaning that the network of the interventions included in our review is connected, we will also conduct a network meta-analysis.28 Further, we will conduct meta-regression analyses to assess the association of study characteristics with the outcome.

    Measures of effect

    For continuous outcomes, the effects will be calculated as weighted mean differences in BP between intervention and usual care group, with 95% CIs. For dichotomous outcomes, we will estimate pooled relative risk (RR) comparing intervention versus usual care group, respectively, with 95% CIs. Results from network meta-analysis will be reported as mean difference or RR for each pair of interventions included in the network.

    Assessment of heterogeneity, subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses

    Reasons for heterogeneity in effect estimates have to be sought in meta-analyses.26 We will carefully list the elements that may potentially lead to heterogeneity between studies. Statistical heterogeneity between studies will be assessed by visual inspection of the forest plots and with the I2 statistic and tested using the Cochran’s Q test.19 In network meta-analysis, we will assume a common parameter for heterogeneity variance across comparisons.

    The main goal of the analyses is to identify which type of intervention has the largest effect on BP and if there are specific population or healthcare setting associated with a large effect. We will therefore conduct subgroup analyses according to specific characteristics: (1) country where the study was conducted (European vs North-American vs other countries); (2) setting (outpatient clinic vs community pharmacy); (3) including patients with diabetes or not; (4) including patients treated or not; (5) including old patients or not; (6) type of pharmacist care (pharmacist-led care vs collaborative care); (7) type of interventions (according to EPOC, see above); (8) including a nurse or not in the intervention; (9) frequency and duration of intervention (once a month vs less frequently); (10) use of e-health or digital tools; (11) level of BP at baseline; and (12) certain age categories and patient characteristics.

    Finally, sensitivity analyses will be performed (1) excluding relatively small studies (with fewer than 50 participants per randomisation group), (2) restricting analyses to studies of high quality and (3) restricting analyses to studies having reported intention-to-treat effect size.

    Assessment of publication bias

    Publication bias will be assessed by visual inspection of funnel plots, and, if sufficient studies are available, funnel plot asymmetry will be examined using the Egger’s test.19 29

    Assessment of strength of evidence

    The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework will be applied in order to assess the strength of the body of evidence for this systematic review.30

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Poulter NR,
      2. Prabhakaran D,
      3. Caulfield M
      . Hypertension. The Lancet 2015;386:801–12.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61468-9
      OpenUrl
    2. ↵
      1. US Preventive Services Task Force,
      2. Krist AH,
      3. Davidson KW, et al
      . Screening for hypertension in adults: US preventive services Task force reaffirmation recommendation statement. JAMA 2021;325:1650–6.doi:10.1001/jama.2021.4987pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33904861
      OpenUrlPubMed
    3. ↵
      1. Burnier M
      . Improving blood pressure control in the hypertensive population. Hypertension 2019;74:29–31.doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.119.12598pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31132950
      OpenUrlPubMed
    4. ↵
      1. Carter BL,
      2. Bosworth HB,
      3. Green BB
      . The hypertension team: the role of the pharmacist, nurse, and teamwork in hypertension therapy. J Clin Hypertens 2012;14:51–65.doi:10.1111/j.1751-7176.2011.00542.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22235824
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    5. ↵
      1. Chisholm-Burns MA,
      2. Kim Lee J,
      3. Spivey CA, et al
      . Us pharmacists' effect as team members on patient care: systematic review and meta-analyses. Med Care 2010;48:923–33.doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181e57962pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20720510
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      1. McLean DL,
      2. McAlister FA,
      3. Johnson JA, et al
      . A randomized trial of the effect of community pharmacist and nurse care on improving blood pressure management in patients with diabetes mellitus: study of cardiovascular risk intervention by pharmacists-hypertension (SCRIP-HTN). Arch Intern Med 2008;168:2355–61.doi:10.1001/archinte.168.21.2355pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19029501
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      1. Santschi V,
      2. Chiolero A,
      3. Burnand B, et al
      . Impact of pharmacist care in the management of cardiovascular disease risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Arch Intern Med 2011;171:1441–53.doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.399pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21911628
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    8. ↵
      1. CPSTF
      2. Guide to Community Preventive Services
      . Cardiovascular disease: team-based care to improve blood pressure control, 2020.
    9. ↵
      1. Anker D,
      2. Tsuyuki RT,
      3. Paradis G, et al
      . Pharmacists to improve hypertension management: guideline concordance from North America to Europe. Can Pharm J 2019;152:180–5.doi:10.1177/1715163519839675pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31156731
      OpenUrlPubMed
    10. ↵
      1. Whelton PK,
      2. Carey RM,
      3. Aronow WS, et al
      . 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: Executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American heart association Task force on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation 2018;138:e426–83.doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000597pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30354655
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. Williams B,
      2. Mancia G,
      3. Spiering W, et al
      . 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the task force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of cardiology and the European Society of hypertension: the task force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of cardiology and the European Society of hypertension. J Hypertens 2018;36:1953–2041.doi:10.1097/HJH.0000000000001940pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30234752
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    12. ↵
      1. Newman TV,
      2. San-Juan-Rodriguez A,
      3. Parekh N, et al
      . Impact of community pharmacist-led interventions in chronic disease management on clinical, utilization, and economic outcomes: an umbrella review. Res Social Adm Pharm 2020;16:1155–65.doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.12.016pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31959565
      OpenUrlPubMed
    13. ↵
      1. Santschi V,
      2. Chiolero A,
      3. Colosimo AL, et al
      . Improving blood pressure control through pharmacist interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Heart Assoc 2014;3:e000718.doi:10.1161/JAHA.113.000718pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24721801
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    14. ↵
      1. Omboni S,
      2. Panzeri E,
      3. Campolo L
      . E-Health in hypertension management: an insight into the current and future role of blood pressure Telemonitoring. Curr Hypertens Rep 2020;22:1–13.doi:10.1007/s11906-020-01056-y
      OpenUrl
    15. ↵
      1. Polgreen LA,
      2. Carter BL,
      3. Polgreen PM, et al
      . A pharmacist intervention for monitoring and treating hypertension using bidirectional Texting: PharmText bp. Contemp Clin Trials 2020;98:106169.doi:10.1016/j.cct.2020.106169pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33038500
      OpenUrlPubMed
    16. ↵
      1. Mills KT,
      2. Obst KM,
      3. Shen W, et al
      . Comparative effectiveness of implementation strategies for blood pressure control in hypertensive patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2018;168:110–20.doi:10.7326/M17-1805pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29277852
      OpenUrlPubMed
    17. ↵
      1. Salanti G
      . Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods 2012;3:80–97.doi:10.1002/jrsm.1037pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26062083
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Santschi V,
      2. Wuerzner G,
      3. Pais B, et al
      . Team-Based care for improving hypertension management: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Front Cardiovasc Med 2021;8:760662.doi:10.3389/fcvm.2021.760662pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34760950
      OpenUrlPubMed
    19. ↵
      1. Higgins JPT,
      2. Thomas J,
      3. Chandler J
      . Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons, 2019.
    20. ↵
      1. CRD, “Systematic Reviews
      . CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care, 2009.
    21. ↵
      1. Shamseer L,
      2. Moher D,
      3. Clarke M, et al
      . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;349:g7647.doi:10.1136/bmj.g7647
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    22. ↵
      1. Koshman SL,
      2. Charrois TL,
      3. Simpson SH, et al
      . Pharmacist care of patients with heart failure: a systematic review of randomized trials. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:687–94.doi:10.1001/archinte.168.7.687pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18413550
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    23. ↵
      1. Page MJ,
      2. McKenzie JE,
      3. Bossuyt PM
      . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372.doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
    24. ↵
      1. A. Veritas Health Innovation
      . Covidence systematic review software
    25. ↵
      1. Juni P,
      2. Altman DG,
      3. Egger M
      . Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ: British Medical Journal 2001;323:42.doi:bmj.323.7303.42
      OpenUrl
    26. ↵
      1. Riley RD,
      2. Higgins JPT,
      3. Deeks JJ
      . Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ 2011;342:d549.doi:10.1136/bmj.d549pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21310794
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    27. ↵
      1. Chiolero A,
      2. Santschi V,
      3. Burnand B, et al
      . Meta-Analyses: with confidence or prediction intervals? Eur J Epidemiol 2012;27:823–5.doi:10.1007/s10654-012-9738-ypmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23070657
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    28. ↵
      1. Cope S,
      2. Zhang J,
      3. Saletan S, et al
      . A process for assessing the feasibility of a network meta-analysis: a case study of everolimus in combination with hormonal therapy versus chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. BMC Med 2014;12:1–17.doi:10.1186/1741-7015-12-93pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24898705
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    29. ↵
      1. Egger M,
      2. Davey Smith G,
      3. Schneider M, et al
      . Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629–34.doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9310563
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    30. ↵
      1. Schünemann H
      . The grade Handbook. Cochrane Collaboration, 2013.

    Footnotes

    • Contributors VS is the guarantor and developed the original idea of this project. VS, VG and AC drafted the manuscript. All authors (VG, BK, CDG, RT, GP, AC and VS) substantially contributed to the development of the selection criteria, the risk of bias assessment strategy and the data extraction list. BK developed the search strategy. VG and BK were in charge of acquisition of data. CDG and AC provided statistical expertise. VS and VG provided expertise on pharmacist care. All authors (VG, BK, CDG, RT, GP, AC and VS) read, provided feedback and approved the final version of the manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement This is a protocol for a systematic review and there was no patient or public involvement in framing the research objective or study design.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.